From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:52:12 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Page allocator: Single Zone optimizations Message-Id: <20061102105212.9bf4579b.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20061027190452.6ff86cae.akpm@osdl.org> <20061027192429.42bb4be4.akpm@osdl.org> <20061027214324.4f80e992.akpm@osdl.org> <20061028180402.7c3e6ad8.akpm@osdl.org> <4544914F.3000502@yahoo.com.au> <20061101182605.GC27386@skynet.ie> <20061101123451.3fd6cfa4.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Nick Piggin , Christoph Lameter , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andy Whitcroft , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:10:02 +0000 (GMT) Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 18:26:05 +0000 > > mel@skynet.ie (Mel Gorman) wrote: > > > >> I never really got this objection. With list-based anti-frag, the > >> zone-balancing logic remains the same. There are patches from Andy > >> Whitcroft that reclaims pages in contiguous blocks, but still with the same > >> zone-ordering. It doesn't affect load balancing between zones as such. > > > > I do believe that lumpy-reclaim (initiated by Andy, redone and prototyped > > by Peter, cruelly abandoned) is a perferable approach to solving the > > fragmentation approach. > > > > On it's own lumpy-reclaim or linear-reclaim were not enough to get > MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES blocks of contiguous pages and these were of interest > for huge pages although not necessarily of much use to memory hot-unplug. I'm interested in lumpy-reclaim as a simple solution to the e1000-cant-allocate-an-order-2-page problem, rather than for hugepages. ie: a bugfix, not a feature.. -- 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: email@kvack.org