Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19

[Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>]

> > 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 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/