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

[Joonsoo Kim]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:41:58AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 07:45 AM, 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>
> 
> Looks like I did that almost year ago, so definitely had to refresh my
> memory now :)
> 
> Anyway now I looked more thoroughly and noticed that this change leaks
> into the reported sysctl. On a 64bit system with ZONE_MOVABLE:
> 
> before the patch:
> vm.lowmem_reserve_ratio = 256   256     32
> 
> after the patch:
> vm.lowmem_reserve_ratio = 256   256     32      2147483647
> 
> So if we indeed remove HIGHMEM from protection (c.f. Michal's mail), we
> should do that differently than with the INT_MAX trick, IMHO.

Hmm, this is already pointed by Minchan and I have answered that.

lkml.kernel.org/r/<20170421013243.GA13966@js1304-desktop>

If you have a better idea, please let me know.

Thanks.