On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 03:06:24 -0700, Mel Gorman [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:26:37AM -0700, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:21:09 -0700, Mel Gorman [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

At this point, I'm going to apologise for not reviewing this a long long
time ago.

On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 03:54:42PM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:

quoted

From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <redacted>

This commit introduces alloc_contig_freed_pages() function
which allocates (ie. removes from buddy system) free pages
in range. Caller has to guarantee that all pages in range
are in buddy system.

Straight away, I'm wondering why you didn't use

mm/compaction.c#isolate_freepages()

It knows how to isolate pages within ranges. All its control information
is passed via struct compact_control() which I recognise may be awkward
for CMA but compaction.c know how to manage all the isolated pages and
pass them to migrate.c appropriately.

It is something to consider.  At first glance, I see that isolate_freepages
seem to operate on pageblocks which is not desired for CMA.

isolate_freepages_block operates on a range of pages that happens to be
hard-coded to be a pageblock because that was the requirements. It calculates
end_pfn and it is possible to make that a function parameter.

Yes, this seems doable.  I'll try and rewrite the patches to use it.

The biggest difference is in how CMA and compaction treat pages which are not
free.  CMA treat it as an error and compaction just skips those.  This is
solvable by an argument though.

-- 
Best regards,                                         _     _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of      o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science,  Micha? ?mina86? Nazarewicz    (o o)
ooo +----<email/xmpp: mpn@google.com>--------------ooO--(_)--Ooo--