On 06/16/2015 10:17 AM, Xishi Qiu wrote: > On 2015/6/16 15:53, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > >> On 06/04/2015 02:54 PM, Xishi Qiu wrote: >>> >>> I think add a new migratetype is btter and easier than a new zone, so I use >> >> If the mirrored memory is in a single reasonably compact (no large holes) >> range >> (per NUMA node) and won't dynamically change its size, then zone might be a >> better option. For one thing, it will still allow distinguishing movable and >> unmovable allocations within the mirrored memory. >> >> We had enough fun with MIGRATE_CMA and all kinds of checks it added to >> allocator >> hot paths, and even CMA is now considering moving to a separate zone. >> > > Hi, how about the problem of this case: > e.g. node 0: 0-4G(dma and dma32) > node 1: 4G-8G(normal), 8-12G(mirror), 12-16G(normal), > so more than one normal zone in a node? or normal zone just span the mirror > zone?
Normal zone can span the mirror zone just fine. However, it will result in zone scanners such as compaction to skip over the mirror zone inefficiently. Hmm... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
