lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches
From
On (02/03/07 09:19), Christoph Lameter didst pronounce:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > However, if that is objectionable, I'd at least like to see zone-based patches
> > go into -mm on the expectation that the memory hot-remove patches will be
> > able to use the infrastructure. It's not ideal for hugepages and it is not my
> > first preference, but it's a step in the right direction. Is this reasonable?
>
> I still think that the list based approach is sufficient for memory
> hotplug if one restricts the location of the unmovable MAX_ORDER chunks
> to not overlap the memory area where we would like to be able to remove
> memory.

Yes, true. In the part where I bias placements of unmovable pages at
lower PFNs, additional steps would need to be taken. Specifically, the
lowest block MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES used for movable pages would need to be
reclaimed for unmovable allocations.

> In very pressing memory situations where we have too much
> unmovable memory we could dynamically disable memory hotplug. There
> would be no need for this partitioning and additional zones.
>

It's simply more complex. I believe it's doable. The main plus going for
the zone is that it is a clearly understood concept and it gives hard
guarantees.

--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-03-02 18:31    [W:0.104 / U:0.572 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site