Re: [PATCH 0/8] Create ZONE_MOVABLE to partition memory between movable and non-movable pages

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:44:58 +0000 (GMT)
Mel Gorman <[email protected]> wrote:

The following 8 patches against 2.6.20-rc4-mm1 create a zone called
ZONE_MOVABLE

Argh.  These surely get all tangled up with the
make-zones-optional-by-adding-zillions-of-ifdef patches:


There may be some entertainment there all right. I didn't see any obvious way of avoiding collisions with those patches but for what it's worth, ZONE_MOVABLE could also be made optional.

In this patchset, I made no assumptions about the number of zones other than the value of MAX_NR_ZONES. There should be no critical collisions but I'll look through this patch list and see what I can spot.

deal-with-cases-of-zone_dma-meaning-the-first-zone.patch

This patch looks ok and looks like it stands on it's own.

introduce-config_zone_dma.patch

ok, no collisions here but obviously this patch does not stand on it's own.

optional-zone_dma-in-the-vm.patch

There are collisions here with the __ZONE_COUNT stuff but it's not difficult to work around.

optional-zone_dma-in-the-vm-no-gfp_dma-check-in-the-slab-if-no-config_zone_dma-is-set.patch
optional-zone_dma-in-the-vm-no-gfp_dma-check-in-the-slab-if-no-config_zone_dma-is-set-reduce-config_zone_dma-ifdefs.patch

There is no cross-over here with the ZONE_MOVABLE patches. They are messing around with slab

optional-zone_dma-for-ia64.patch

No collision here

remove-zone_dma-remains-from-parisc.patch
remove-zone_dma-remains-from-sh-sh64.patch

No collisions here either. I see that there were discussions about Power potentially doing something similar.

set-config_zone_dma-for-arches-with-generic_isa_dma.patch

No collisions

zoneid-fix-up-calculations-for-zoneid_pgshift.patch


Fun, but no collisions.

To my suprise, I only spotted one major conflict point with optional-zone_dma-in-the-vm.patch and that should be easy enough to resolve. What I could do is break up one of my patches into most-of-the-patch and the-part-that-may-conflict-with-optional-dma-zone . The smaller part would then change depending on whether the optional DMA zone work is present. Would that be any help?

My objections to those patches:

- They add zillions of ifdefs

- They make the VM's behaviour diverge between different platforms and
 between differen configs on the same platforms, and hence degrade
 maintainability and increase complexity.


I haven't thought about it much so I probably am missing something. The major difference I see is when only one zone is present. In that case, a number of loops presumably get optimised away and the behavior is very different (presumably better although you point out no figures exist to prove it). Where there are two or more zones, the code paths should be similar whether there are 2, 3 or 4 zones present.

As the common platforms will always have more than one zone, it'll be heavily tested and I'm guessing that distros are always going to have to ship kernels with ZONE_DMA for the devices that require it. The only platform I see that may have problems at the moment is IA64 which looks like the only platform that can have one and only one zone. I am guessing that Christoph will catch problems here fairly quickly although a non-optional ZONE_MOVABLE would throw a spanner into the works somewhat.

- We kicked around some quite different ways of implementing the same
 things, but nothing came of it.  iirc, one was to remove the hard-coded
 zones altogether and rework all the MM to operate in terms of

	for (idx = 0; idx < NUMBER_OF_ZONES; idx++)
		...


hmm. Assuming the aim is to have a situation where all zone-related loops are optimised away at compile-time, it's hard to see an alternative that works. Any dynamic way of creating zone at boot time will not have the compile-time optimizations and any API that is page-range aware will eventually hit the problems zones were made to solve (i.e. unmovable pages locked in the lower address ranges).

- I haven't seen any hard numbers to justify the change.

So I want to drop them all.


--
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux