On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:17:26 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I suspect you'll have to live with that. I've yet to see a vaguely sane
> > proposal to otherwise prevent unreclaimable, unmoveable kernel allocations
> > from landing in a hot-unpluggable physical memory region.
>
> Mel's approach already mananges memory in a chunks of MAX_ORDER. It is
> easy to just restrict the unmovable types of allocation to a section of
> the zone.
What happens when we need to run reclaim against just a section of a zone?
Lumpy-reclaim could be used here; perhaps that's Mel's approach too?
We'd need new infrastructure to perform the
section-of-a-zone<->physical-memory-block mapping, and to track various
states of the section-of-a-zone. This will be complex, and buggy. It will
probably require the introduction of some sort of "sub-zone" structure. At
which stage people would be justified in asking "why didn't you just use
zones - that's what they're for?"
> Then we should be doing some work to cut down the number of unmovable
> allocations.
That's rather pointless. A feature is either reliable or it is not. We'll
never be able to make all kernel allocations reclaimable/moveable so we'll
never be reliable with this approach. I don't see any alternative to the
never-allocate-kernel-objects-in-removeable-memory approach.
-
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]
