Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752100AbdGDHCB (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jul 2017 03:02:01 -0400 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.187]:9272 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751910AbdGDHCA (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jul 2017 03:02:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH mm] introduce reverse buddy concept to reduce buddy fragment To: Michal Hocko References: <1498821941-55771-1-git-send-email-zhouxianrong@huawei.com> <20170703074829.GD3217@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170703153307.GA11848@dhcp22.suse.cz> <5c9cf499-6f71-6dda-6378-7e9f27e6cd70@huawei.com> <20170704065215.GB12068@dhcp22.suse.cz> CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , From: zhouxianrong Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 15:00:08 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170704065215.GB12068@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.142.145.228] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020206.595B3D4F.00D6,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2014-11-16 11:51:01, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 898ac317a471f8b02700ca9d789735b4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 576 Lines: 16 i do the test again. after minutes i tell you the result. On 2017/7/4 14:52, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 04-07-17 09:21:00, zhouxianrong wrote: >> the test was done as follows: >> >> 1. the environment is android 7.0 and kernel is 4.1 and managed memory is 3.5GB > > There have been many changes in the compaction proper since than. Do you > see the same problem with the current upstream kernel? > >> 2. every 4s startup one apk, total 100 more apks need to startup >> 3. after finishing step 2, sample buddyinfo once and get the result > > How stable are those results? >