From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: [RFC] My research agenda for 2.7 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:54:46 +0200 References: <200306250111.01498.phillips@arcor.de> <23430000.1056725030@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <23430000.1056725030@[10.10.2.4]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200306271654.46491.phillips@arcor.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Martin J. Bligh" , Mel Gorman Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Friday 27 June 2003 16:43, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > The buddy allocator is not a good system for getting rid of fragmentation. We've talked in the past about throwing out the buddy allocator and adopting something more modern and efficient and I hope somebody will actually get around to doing that. In any event, defragging is an orthogonal issue. Some allocation strategies may be statistically more resistiant to fragmentation than others, but no allocator has been invented, or ever will be, that can guarantee that terminal fragmentation will never occur - only active defragmentation can provide such a guarantee. Regards, Daniel -- 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/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org