From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 22:07:36 +0900 From: Yasunori Goto Subject: Re: fragmentation avoidance Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans In-Reply-To: <20070501101651.GA29957@skynet.ie> References: <20070430162007.ad46e153.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070501101651.GA29957@skynet.ie> Message-Id: <20070507211327.3129.Y-GOTO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, apw@shadowen.org, clameter@sgi.com List-ID: Sorry for late response. I went on a vacation in last week. And I'm in the mountain of a ton of unread mail now.... > > Mel's moveable-zone work. > > These patches are what creates ZONE_MOVABLE. The last 6 patches should be > collapsed into a single patch: > > handle-kernelcore=-generic > > I believe Yasunori Goto is looking at these from the perspective of memory > hot-remove and has caught a few bugs in the past. Goto-san may be able to > comment on whether they have been reviewed recently. Hmm, I don't think my review is enough. To be precise, I'm just one user/tester of ZONE_MOVABLE. I have tried to make memory remove patches with Mel-san's ZONE_MOVABLE patch. And the bugs are things that I found in its work. (I'll post these patches in a few days.) > The main complexity is in one function in patch one which determines where > the PFN is in each node for ZONE_MOVABLE. Getting that right so that the > requested amount of kernel memory spread as evenly as possible is just > not straight-forward. >>From memory-hotplug view, ZONE_MOVABLE should be aligned by section size. But MAX_ORDER alignment is enough for others... Bye. -- Yasunori Goto -- 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