On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:
Because Andrew has made it pretty clear he will not take those patches on the
grounds of complexity - at least until it can be shown that they fix the e1000
problem. Any improvement on the behavior of those patches such as address
biasing to allow memory hot-remove of the higher addresses makes them even
more complex.
What is the e1000 problem? Jumbo packet allocation via GFP_KERNEL?
Yes. Potentially the anti-fragmentation patches could address this by
clustering atomic allocations together as much as possible.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
-
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]
