From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leandro Motta Barros Subject: Re: __vmalloc and alloc_page Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:20:08 -0300 References: <200309171326.11848.lmb@exatas.unisinos.br> <20030917193202.GG14079@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20030917193202.GG14079@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200309181320.08605.lmb@exatas.unisinos.br> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, sisopiii-l@cscience.org List-ID: On Wednesday 17 September 2003 16:32, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > Higher-order would probably not be as useful as you'd suspect; try > looking at the distribution of available pages of given sizes in /proc/. > OTOH, just being able to get more than one page in one call (not relying > on physically contiguous memory) would be a simple and useful optimization. I'm not sure if I really understood what you said. Does it means that in some cases (e.g., when the buddy allocator has a free chunk of the proper size) this could be good, even though this will not help other things (like reducing the number of splits in the buddy allocator)? LMB -- 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