Re: [PATCH -mm v2] mm: have order > 0 compaction start off where itleft

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:34:09 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > The rest of this patch takes care to ensure that
> > ->compact_cached_free_pfn is aligned to pageblock_nr_pages.  But it now
> > appears that this particular site will violate that.
> > 
> > What's up?  Do we need to fix this site, or do we remove all that
> > make-compact_cached_free_pfn-aligned code?
> 
> 
> I vote removing the warning because it doesn't related to Rik's incremental compaction.
> Let's see. 
> 
> high_pfn = min(low_pfn, pfn) = cc->migrate_pfn + pageblock_nr_pages.
> In here, cc->migrate_pfn isn't necessarily pageblock aligined.
> So if we don't consider compact_cached_free_pfn, it can hit.
> 
> static void isolate_freepages()
> {
> 	high_pfn = min(low_pfn, pfn) = cc->migrate_pfn + pageblock_nr_pages;
> 	for (..) {
> 		...
> 		 WARN_ON_ONCE(high_pfn & (pageblock_nr_pages - 1));
> 		
> 	}
> }

Please, look at the patch.  In numerous places it is aligning
compact_cached_free_pfn to a multiple of pageblock_nr_pages.  But in
one place it doesn't do that.  So are all those alignment operations
necessary?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/