On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 09:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:02:51 -0400
> Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [But, maybe reordering the zonelists is not such a good idea
> > when ZONE_MOVABLE is populated?]
> >
>
> It's case-by-case I think. In zone order with ZONE_MOVABLE case,
> user's page cache will not use ZONE_NORMAL until ZONE_MOVABLE in all node
> is exhausted. This is an expected behavior, I think.
>
> I think the real problem is the scheme for "How to set zone movable size to
> appropriate value for the system". This needs more study and documentation.
> (but maybe depends on system configuration to some extent.)
Yes. Having thought about it a bit more, maybe zone order IS what we
want if we desire the remainder of the zone from which is was taken
[ZONE_MOVABLE-1] to be reserved for non-movable kernel use as long as
possible--similar to the dma zone. I had made the non-movable zone very
large for testing, so that I could create a segment that used all of the
movable zones on all the nodes and then dip into the non-movable/normal
zone. If I used a more reasonable [much smaller] amount of kernelcore,
the interleave would have worked as "expected".
Of course, I don't have any idea of what is a "reasonable amount".
Guess I could look at non-movable zone memory usage in a system at
typical or peak load to get an idea. Anyone have any data in this
regard?
Lee
-
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]
