From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:43:30 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: About the free page pool Message-ID: <20020903054330.GH18114@holomorphy.com> References: <3D73CB28.D2F7C7B0@zip.com.au> <218D9232-BEBF-11D6-A3BE-000393829FA4@cs.amherst.edu> <3D740C35.9E190D04@zip.com.au> <20020903051204.GG18114@holomorphy.com> <3D744BE8.4EB2DFB7@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D744BE8.4EB2DFB7@zip.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Scott Kaplan , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Are you referring to boot-time allocations using get_free_pages() >> instead of bootmem? Killing those off would be nice, yes. It limits >> the size of some hash tables on larger machines where "proportional >> to memory" means "bigger than MAX_ORDER". (Changing the algorithms to >> not use gargantuan hash tables might also be an interesting exercise >> but one I've not got the bandwidth to take on.) On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:43:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Nope. I'm referring to 1.5 megabytes lost to anonymous kmallocs, > two or three megabytes of biovec mempools, etc. And that's with > NR_CPUS=4, and that's excluding all the statically allocated > array[NR_CPUS]s. Slightly different then. I don't know of anyone regularly testing 2.5.x on 4MB machines, which might need a bit of help on this front if more memory than they have is flushed down the toilet at boot. I've got a collection of ancient toasters but the ports aren't booting, and for reasons far deeper than this. 4MB bochs/x86 laptop? No time. =( Cheers, Bill -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/