On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
Unmovable allocations in the movable zone. Yuck.
I know, but my objective at this time is to allow the hugepage pool to be
resized at runtime for situations where the number of required hugepages
is not known in advance. Having a zone for movable pages allows that to
happen. Also, it's possible that migration of hugepages will be supported
at some time in the future. That's a more reasonable possibility than
moving kernel memory.
Why dont you abandon the
whole concept of statically sized movable zone and go back to the nice
earlier idea of dynamically assigning MAX_ORDER chunks to be movable or not?
Because Andrew has made it pretty clear he will not take those patches on
the grounds of complexity - at least until it can be shown that they fix
the e1000 problem. Any improvement on the behavior of those patches such
as address biasing to allow memory hot-remove of the higher addresses
makes them even more complex.
Also, almost every time the anti-frag patches are posted, someone suggests
that zones be used instead. I wanted to show what those patches look like.
(of course, every time I post the zone approach, someone suggests I go
back the other way)
--
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]
