Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:31:39 -0600 | From | Joel Schopp <> | Subject | Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches |
| |
>> Exhibiting a workload where the list patch breaks down and the zone >> patch rescues it might help if it's felt that the combination isn't as >> good as lists in isolation. I'm sure one can be dredged up somewhere. > > I can't think of a workload that totally makes a mess out of list-based. > However, list-based makes no guarantees on availability. If a system > administrator knows they need between 10,000 and 100,000 huge pages and > doesn't want to waste memory pinning too many huge pages at boot-time, > the zone-based mechanism would be what he wanted.
From our testing with earlier versions of list based for memory hot-unplug on pSeries machines we were able to hot-unplug huge amounts of memory after running the nastiest workloads we could find for over a week. Without the patches we were unable to hot-unplug anything within minutes of running the same workloads.
If something works for 99.999% of people (list based) and there is an easy way to configure it for the other 0.001% of the people ("zone" based) I call that a great solution. I really don't understand what the resistance is to these patches.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |