The patches have gone through a large number of revisions, have been
heavily tested and reviewed by a few people. The memory footprint of this
approach is smaller than introducing new zones. If the cache footprint,
increased branches and instructions were a problem, I would expect
them to
show up in the aim9 benchmark or the benchmark that ran ghostscript
multiple times on a large file.
I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into them. You must appreciate
that they add a reasonable amount of complexity and a non-zero perormance
cost to the page allocator.
The patches do ad a reasonable amount of complexity to the page allocator. In
my opinion that is the only downside of these patches, even though it is a big
one. What we need to decide as a community is if there is a less complex way to
do this, and if there isn't a less complex way then is the benefit worth the
increased complexity.
As to the non-zero performance cost, I think hard numbers should carry more
weight than they have been given in this area. Mel has posted hard numbers that
say the patches are a wash with respect to performance. I don't see any
evidence to contradict those results.
The will need high order allocations if we want to provide HugeTLB pages
to userspace on-demand rather than reserving at boot-time. This is a
future problem, but it's one that is not worth tackling until the
fragmentation problem is fixed first.
Sure. In what form, we haven't agreed. I vote zones! :)
I'd like to hear more details of how zones would be less complex while still
solving the problem. I just don't get it.
-
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]
