On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > Why would we run reclaim against a section of a zone?
>
> Strange question. Because all the pages are in use for something else.
We always run reclaim against the whole zone not against parts. Why
would we start running reclaim against a portion of a zone?
> > Mel aready has that for anti-frag. The sections are per MAX_ORDER area
> > and the only states are movable unmovable and reclaimable. There is
> > nothing more to it. No other state information should be added. Why would
> > we need sub zones? For what purpose?
>
> You're proposing that for memory hot-unplug, we take a single zone and by
> some means subdivide that into sections which correspond to physically
> hot-unpluggable memory. That certainly does not map onto MAX_ORDER
> sections.
Mel's patches are already managing "sections" (if you want to call it
that) of a zone in units of MAX_ORDER. If we memorize where the lowest
unmovable MAX_ORDER block is then we have the necessary separation and can
do memory unplug on the remainder of the zone.
> > What feature are you talking about?
>
> Memory hot-unplug, of course.
There are multiple issues that we discuss here. Please be clear.
Categorical demands for perfection certainly wont help us.
-
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]
