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 17:17:01 +0200 References: <200306250111.01498.phillips@arcor.de> <200306271654.46491.phillips@arcor.de> <25700000.1056726277@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <25700000.1056726277@[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: <200306271717.01562.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 17:04, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote (on Friday, June 27, 2003 > > 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. > > Whilst I agree with that in principle, it's inevitably expensive. Thus > whilst we may need to have that code, we should try to avoid using it ;-) That's exactly the idea. Active defragmentation is just a fallback to handle currently-unhandled corner cases. A good, efficient allocator that resists fragmentation in the first place is still needed. 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