Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:00:39 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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?

Oh for gawd's sake.

If you want to allocate a page from within the first 1/4 of a zone, and if
all those pages are in use for something else then you'll need to run
reclaim against the first 1/4 of that zone.  Or fail the allocation.  Or
run reclaim against the entire zone.  The second two options are
self-evidently dumb.


-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: [email protected] (Mel Gorman)
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: [email protected] (Mel Gorman)
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH 2/2] fsstack: Fix up ecryptfs's fsstack usage
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Export current_is_keventd() for libphy
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]