From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20050602.225110.03979632.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: Avoiding external fragmentation with a placement policy Version 12 From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <358040000.1117777372@[10.10.2.4]> References: <357240000.1117776882@[10.10.2.4]> <20050602.223712.41634750.davem@davemloft.net> <358040000.1117777372@[10.10.2.4]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org From: "Martin J. Bligh" Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 22:42:52 -0700 Return-Path: To: mbligh@mbligh.org Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, jschopp@austin.ibm.com, mel@csn.ul.ie, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org List-ID: > but it's vastly different order of magnitude than touching disk. > Can we not do a "sniff alloc" first (ie if this is easy, give it > to me, else just fail and return w/o reclaim), then fall back to > smaller allocs? That's what AF_UNIX does. But with other protocols, we can't jiggle the loopback MTU just because higher allocs no longer are easily obtainable. Really, the networking should not try to grab anything more than SKB_MAX_ORDER unless the device's MTU is larger than PAGE_SIZE << SKB_MAX_ORDER, which loopback's "16K - fudge" is not. -- 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