Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:37:32 -0800 | From | Bill Irwin <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |