Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 2 Nov 2020 14:44:49 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Increasing CMA Utilization with a GFP Flag
Message-ID: <20201102144449.GM27442@casper.infradead.org>
References: <cover.1604282969.git.cgoldswo@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1604282969.git.cgoldswo@codeaurora.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 06:39:20AM -0800, Chris Goldsworthy wrote:
> The current approach to increasing CMA utilization introduced in
> commit 16867664936e ("mm,page_alloc,cma: conditionally prefer cma
> pageblocks for movable allocations") increases CMA utilization by
> redirecting MIGRATE_MOVABLE allocations to a CMA region, when
> greater than half of the free pages in a given zone are CMA pages.
> The issue in this approach is that allocations with type
> MIGRATE_MOVABLE can still succumb to pinning. To get around
> this, one approach is to re-direct allocations to the CMA areas, that
> are known not to be victims of pinning.
> 
> To this end, this series brings in __GFP_CMA, which we mark with
> allocations that we know are safe to be redirected to a CMA area.

This feels backwards to me.  What you're essentially saying is "Some
allocations marked with GFP_MOVABLE turn out not to be movable, so we're
going to add another GFP_REALLY_MOVABLE flag" instead of tracking down
which GFP_MOVABLE allocations aren't really movable.