From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:25:41 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated Message-Id: <20061205112541.2a4b7414.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20061130170746.GA11363@skynet.ie> <20061130173129.4ebccaa2.akpm@osdl.org> <20061201110103.08d0cf3d.akpm@osdl.org> <20061204140747.GA21662@skynet.ie> <20061204113051.4e90b249.akpm@osdl.org> <20061204120611.4306024e.akpm@osdl.org> <20061204131959.bdeeee41.akpm@osdl.org> <20061204142259.3cdda664.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: Christoph Lameter Cc: Mel Gorman , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:00:39 -0800 (PST) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > What happens when we need to run reclaim against just a section of a zone? > > > > Lumpy-reclaim could be used here; perhaps that's Mel's approach too? > > > > > > Why would we run reclaim against a section of a zone? > > > > Strange question. Because all the pages are in use for something else. > > We always run reclaim against the whole zone not against parts. Why > would we start running reclaim against a portion of a zone? Oh for gawd's sake. If you want to allocate a page from within the first 1/4 of a zone, and if all those pages are in use for something else then you'll need to run reclaim against the first 1/4 of that zone. Or fail the allocation. Or run reclaim against the entire zone. The second two options are self-evidently dumb. -- 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