Hi, On Monday 08 October 2012 10:48:07 Mel Gorman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 05:06:54PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hi Mel, > > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 04:12:17PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:03:07PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 03:41:35PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:48:14PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > > > > So this really isn't all that new, but I just wanted to confirm my > > > > > > > results from last week. We'll see if bisection shows up something > > > > > > > interesting. > > > > > > > > > > > > I just finished bisecting this and git reports: > > > > > > > > > > > > 3750280f8bd0ed01753a72542756a8c82ab27933 is the first bad commit > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm attaching the complete bisection log and a diff of all the > > > > > > changes > > > > > > applied on top of the bad commit to make it compile and run on my > > > > > > board. > > > > > > Most of the patch is probably not important, though. There are two > > > > > > hunks > > > > > > which have the pageblock changes I already posted an two other hunks > > > > > > with the patch you posted earlier. > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope this helps. If you want me to run any other tests, please > > > > > > let me > > > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you test with this on top please? > > > > > > > > That doesn't build on top of the bad commit. Or is it supposed to go on > > > > top of next-20120926? > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't build or do you mean it doesn't apply? Assuming the problem > > > was that it didn't apply then try this one. It applies on top of > > > next-20120928 which is the closest tag I have to next-20120926. > > > > > > ---8<--- > > > mm: compaction: Cache if a pageblock was scanned and no pages were > > > isolated -fix3 > > > > > > CMA requires that the PG_migrate_skip hint be skipped but it was only > > > skipping it when isolating pages for migration, not for free. Ensure > > > cc->isolate_skip_hint gets passed in both cases. > > > > > > This is a fix for > > > mm-compaction-cache-if-a-pageblock-was-scanned-and-no-pages-were-isolated-fix.patch > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Minchan Kim <[email protected]> > > > > But please resend below compile error fixing. > > > > Thanks Minchan. I did resent this patch to Andrew with the subject "[PATCH] > mm: compaction: Cache if a pageblock was scanned and no pages were isolated > -fix3". It should have had the build errors fixed but has not been > picked up yet.
I also need following patch to make CONFIG_CMA=y && CONFIG_COMPACTION=y case work: From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]> Subject: [PATCH] mm: compaction: cache if a pageblock was scanned and no pages were isolated - cma fix Patch "mm: compaction: cache if a pageblock was scanned and no pages were isolated" needs a following fix to successfully boot next-20121002 kernel (same with next-20121008) with CONFIG_CMA=y and CONFIG_COMPACTION=y (with applied -fix1, -fix2, -fix3 patches from Mel Gorman and also with cmatest module from Thierry Reding compiled in). Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <[email protected]> --- mm/compaction.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: b/mm/compaction.c =================================================================== --- a/mm/compaction.c 2012-10-08 18:10:53.491679716 +0200 +++ b/mm/compaction.c 2012-10-08 18:11:33.615679713 +0200 @@ -117,7 +117,8 @@ static void update_pageblock_skip(struct bool migrate_scanner) { struct zone *zone = cc->zone; - if (!page) + + if (!page || cc->ignore_skip_hint) return; if (!nr_isolated) { -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
