lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches
At some point in the past, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> 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.

On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 10:31:39AM -0600, Joel Schopp wrote:
> 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.

Sorry if I was unclear; I was anticipating others' objections and
offering to assist in responding to them. I myself have no concerns
about the above strategy, apart from generally wanting to recover the
list-based patch's hugepage availability without demanding it as a
merging criterion.


-- wli
-
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 22:41    [W:0.399 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site