[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 00/12] get rid of GFP_ZONE_TABLE/BAD
On Fri 25-05-18 05:00:44, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 05:29:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > ie if we had more,
> > > could we solve our pain by making them more generic?
> >
> > Well, if you have more you will consume more bits in the struct pages,
> > right?
> Not necessarily ... the zone number is stored in the struct page
> currently, so either two or three bits are used right now. In my
> proposal, one can infer the zone of a page from its PFN, except for
> ZONE_MOVABLE. So we could trim down to just one bit per struct page
> for 32-bit machines while using 3 bits on 64-bit machines, where there
> is plenty of space.

Just be warned that page_zone is called from many hot paths. I am not
sure adding something more complex there is going to fly.

> > > it more-or-less sucks that the devices with 28-bit DMA limits are forced
> > > to allocate from the low 16MB when they're perfectly capable of using the
> > > low 256MB.
> >
> > Do we actually care all that much about those? If yes then we should
> > probably follow the ZONE_DMA (x86) path and use a CMA region for them.
> > I mean most devices should be good with very limited addressability or
> > below 4G, no?
> Sure. One other thing I meant to mention was the media devices
> (TV capture cards and so on) which want a vmalloc_32() allocation.
> On 32-bit machines right now, we allocate from LOWMEM, when we really
> should be allocating from the 1GB-4GB region. 32-bit machines generally
> don't have a ZONE_DMA32 today.

Well, _I_ think that vmalloc on 32b is just lost case...

Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-28 17:57    [W:0.116 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site