Re: [PATCH] mm: cma: support sysfs

[Minchan Kim]

On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 01:58:06PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 2/5/21 1:52 PM, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > I takes your suggestion something like this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > [alloc_range] could be order or range by interval
> > > > > 
> > > > > /sys/kernel/mm/cma/cma-A/[alloc_range]/success
> > > > > /sys/kernel/mm/cma/cma-A/[alloc_range]/fail
> > > > > ..
> > > > > ..
> > > > > /sys/kernel/mm/cma/cma-Z/[alloc_range]/success
> > > > > /sys/kernel/mm/cma/cma-Z/[alloc_range]/fail
> > 
> > The interface above seems to me the most useful actually, if by
> > [alloc_range] you mean the different allocation orders. This would
> > cover Minchan's per-CMA failure tracking and would also allow us to
> > understand what kind of allocations are failing and therefore if the
> > problem is caused by pinning/fragmentation or by over-utilization.
> > 
> 
> I agree. That seems about right, now that we've established that
> cma areas are a must-have.

Okay, now we agreed the dirction right now so let me do that in next
version. If you don't see it's reasonable, let me know.

* I will drop the number of CMA *page* allocation attemtps/failures to
make simple start
* I will keep CMA allocation attemtps/failures
* They will be under /sys/kernel/mm/cma/cma-XX/success,fail
* It will turn on CONFIG_CMA && CONFIG_SYSFS

Orthognal work(diffrent patchset)

* adding global CMA alloc/fail into vmstat
* adding alloc_range success/failure under CONFIG_CMA_ALLOC_TRACKING
  whatever configuration or just by default if everyone agree

Thanks.