On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:37:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 16:53:03 +0900 js1...@gmail.com wrote: > > > From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo....@lge.com> > > > > v2 > > o previous failure in linux-next turned out that it's not the problem of > > this patchset. It was caused by the wrong assumption by specific > > architecture. > > > > lkml.kernel.org/r/20171114173719.ga28...@atomide.com > > > > o add missing cache flush to the patch "ARM: CMA: avoid double mapping > > to the CMA area if CONFIG_HIGHMEM = y" > > > > > > This patchset is the follow-up of the discussion about the > > "Introduce ZONE_CMA (v7)" [1]. Please reference it if more information > > is needed. > > > > In this patchset, the memory of the CMA area is managed by using > > the ZONE_MOVABLE. Since there is another type of the memory in this zone, > > we need to maintain a migratetype for the CMA memory to account > > the number of the CMA memory. So, unlike previous patchset, there is > > less deletion of the code. > > > > Otherwise, there is no big change. > > > > Motivation of this patchset is described in the commit description of > > the patch "mm/cma: manage the memory of the CMA area by using > > the ZONE_MOVABLE". Please refer it for more information. > > > > This patchset is based on linux-next-20170822 plus > > "mm/page_alloc: don't reserve ZONE_HIGHMEM for ZONE_MOVABLE". > > mhocko had issues with that patch which weren't addressed? > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170914132452.d5klyizce72rh...@dhcp22.suse.cz
Hello, Andrew. Sorry for late response. I was on a long vacation. I don't do anything on that patch yet. In fact, that patch isn't really necessary to this patchset so I didn't include it into this patchset. I will re-submit that patch after fixing the issue. Thanks.
