Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] mm/page_alloc: don't reserve ZONE_HIGHMEM for ZONE_MOVABLE request

[Minchan Kim]

Hi Joonsoo,

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:17:14PM +0900, js1304@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Freepage on ZONE_HIGHMEM doesn't work for kernel memory so it's not that
> important to reserve. When ZONE_MOVABLE is used, this problem would
> theorectically cause to decrease usable memory for GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE
> allocation request which is mainly used for page cache and anon page
> allocation. So, fix it.
> 
> And, defining sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio array by MAX_NR_ZONES - 1 size
> makes code complex. For example, if there is highmem system, following
> reserve ratio is activated for *NORMAL ZONE* which would be easyily
> misleading people.
> 
>  #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
>  32
>  #endif
> 
> This patch also fix this situation by defining sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio
> array by MAX_NR_ZONES and place "#ifdef" to right place.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  include/linux/mmzone.h |  2 +-
>  mm/page_alloc.c        | 11 ++++++-----
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> index ebaccd4..96194bf 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> @@ -869,7 +869,7 @@ int min_free_kbytes_sysctl_handler(struct ctl_table *, int,
>  					void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
>  int watermark_scale_factor_sysctl_handler(struct ctl_table *, int,
>  					void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
> -extern int sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio[MAX_NR_ZONES-1];
> +extern int sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio[MAX_NR_ZONES];
>  int lowmem_reserve_ratio_sysctl_handler(struct ctl_table *, int,
>  					void __user *, size_t *, loff_t *);
>  int percpu_pagelist_fraction_sysctl_handler(struct ctl_table *, int,
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 32b31d6..60ffa4e 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -203,17 +203,18 @@ static void __free_pages_ok(struct page *page, unsigned int order);
>   * TBD: should special case ZONE_DMA32 machines here - in those we normally
>   * don't need any ZONE_NORMAL reservation
>   */
> -int sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio[MAX_NR_ZONES-1] = {
> +int sysctl_lowmem_reserve_ratio[MAX_NR_ZONES] = {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA
> -	 256,
> +	[ZONE_DMA] = 256,
>  #endif
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA32
> -	 256,
> +	[ZONE_DMA32] = 256,
>  #endif
> +	[ZONE_NORMAL] = 32,
>  #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> -	 32,
> +	[ZONE_HIGHMEM] = INT_MAX,
>  #endif
> -	 32,
> +	[ZONE_MOVABLE] = INT_MAX,
>  };

We need to update lowmem_reserve_ratio in Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt.
And to me, INT_MAX is rather awkward.

# cat /proc/sys/vm/lowmem_reserve_ratio
        256     256     32      2147483647      2147483647

What do you think about to use 0 or -1 as special meaning
instead 2147483647?

Anyway, it could be separate patch regardless of zone_cma
so I hope Andrew to merge this patch regardless of other patches
in this patchset.

Thanks.