-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Rafael Aquini [off-list ref] 
发送时间: 2021年4月30日 3:46
收件人: Chu,Kaiping [off-list ref]
抄送: mcgrof@kernel.org; keescook@chromium.org; yzaikin@google.com; akpm@linux-foundation.org; vbabka@suse.cz; nigupta@nvidia.com; bhe@redhat.com; khalid.aziz@oracle.com; iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com; mateusznosek0@gmail.com; sh_def@163.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mm@kvack.org
主题: Re: 答复: [PATCH v3] mm/compaction:let proactive compaction order configurable

On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 01:17:40AM +0000, Chu,Kaiping wrote:

Please see my answer inline.

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Rafael Aquini [off-list ref]
发送时间: 2021年4月26日 9:31
收件人: Chu,Kaiping [off-list ref]
抄送: mcgrof@kernel.org; keescook@chromium.org; yzaikin@google.com; 
akpm@linux-foundation.org; vbabka@suse.cz; nigupta@nvidia.com; 
bhe@redhat.com; khalid.aziz@oracle.com; iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com; 
mateusznosek0@gmail.com; sh_def@163.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; 
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mm@kvack.org
主题: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/compaction:let proactive compaction order 
configurable

On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 09:21:02AM +0800, chukaiping wrote:

quoted

Currently the proactive compaction order is fixed to 
COMPACTION_HPAGE_ORDER(9), it's OK in most machines with lots of 
normal 4KB memory, but it's too high for the machines with small 
normal memory, for example the machines with most memory configured 
as 1GB hugetlbfs huge pages. In these machines the max order of free 
pages is often below 9, and it's always below 9 even with hard 
compaction. This will lead to proactive compaction be triggered very 
frequently. In these machines we only care about order of 3 or 4.
This patch export the oder to proc and let it configurable by user, 
and the default value is still COMPACTION_HPAGE_ORDER.

Signed-off-by: chukaiping <redacted>
Reported-by: kernel test robot <redacted>

Two minor nits on the commit log message: 
* there seems to be a whitespage missing in your short log: 
  "... mm/compaction:let ..."
--> I will fix it in next patch.

* has the path really been reported by a test robot?
--> Yes. There is a compile error in v1, I fixed it in v2.

So, no... the test robot should not be listed as Reported-by. 

I did it as below suggestion in the build error notification email sent by kernel test robot.
" If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
Reported-by: kernel test robot <redacted>"