Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752050Ab2JIFP5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2012 01:15:57 -0400 Received: from mailout1.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.11]:46196 "EHLO mailout1.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751037Ab2JIFPz (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Oct 2012 01:15:55 -0400 Message-id: <5073B325.6060905@samsung.com> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:16:21 +0200 From: Marek Szyprowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-version: 1.0 To: Minchan Kim Cc: Rabin Vincent , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML Subject: Re: CMA and zone watermarks References: <20121009031023.GF13817@bbox> <50739615.9080205@samsung.com> <20121009044317.GG13817@bbox> <5073ADC9.7030201@samsung.com> <20121009050748.GH13817@bbox> In-reply-to: <20121009050748.GH13817@bbox> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: No Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2172 Lines: 52 Hello, On 10/9/2012 7:07 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 06:53:29AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On 10/9/2012 6:43 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 05:12:21AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: >>>> On 10/9/2012 5:10 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 05:41:14PM +0200, Rabin Vincent wrote: >> >>>>> Fortunately, recently, Bart sent a patch about that. >>>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=134763299016693&w=2 >>>>> >>>>> Could you test above patches in your kernel? >>>>> You have to apply [2/4], [3/4], [4/4] and don't need [1/4]. >>>> >>>> AFAIR without patch [1/4], free cma page counter will go below zero >>>> and weird thing will happen, so better apply the complete patchset. >>> >>> I can't understand your point. [1/4] is just fix for correcting trace >>> No? >> >> I just remember we ran into such strange negative number of free cma >> pages issue without that patch, but maybe the final patchset will >> simply fail to apply without the first patch. > > I have no objection to apply them all, of course. > But note that if you suffer from such strange bug without [1/4], > it should be dug in without buring into just "fixing of the trace" > comment. As I saw the code without [1/4], I can't find any fault. > Could you elaborate it more if you have any guessing in mind? I remember that in one version of the Bartek's patches, page_private(page) has been used directly for getting the migratetype after a call to __free_one_page() (the same way as trace_mm_page_pcpu_drain() used it), what resulted in incorrect counting of free pages. The issue has been fixed then by the patch [1/4]. Now I've check that the next patches use mt variable instead of page_private(page), so they will simply not apply without [1/4]. No other issues should be expected. I'm sorry for confusion. Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski Samsung Poland R&D Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/