From: Dave McCracken <dave.mccracken@oracle.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@skynet.ie>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
npiggin@suse.de, kenchen@google.com, jschopp@austin.ibm.com,
apw@shadowen.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com,
a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com, clameter@sgi.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -mm merge plans -- anti-fragmentation
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:29:45 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200707100929.46153.dave.mccracken@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070710102043.GA20303@skynet.ie>
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Mel's page allocator work. Might merge this, but I'm still not hearing
> > sufficiently convincing noises from a sufficient number of people over
> > this.
>
> This is a long on-going story. It bounces between people who say it's not a
> complete solution and everything should have the 100% ability to defragment
> and the people on the other side that say it goes a long way to solving
> their problem. I've cc'd some of the parties that have expressed any
> interest in the last year.
I find myself wondering what "sufficiently convincing noises" are. I think we
can all agree that in the current kernel order>0 allocations are a disaster.
They simply aren't useable once the system fragments. I think we can also
all agree that 100% defragmentation is impossible without rewriting the
kernel to avoid the hard-coded virtual->physical relationship we have now.
With that said, the only remaining question I see is whether we need order>0
allocations. If we do, then Mel's patches are clearly the right thing to do.
They have received a lot of testing (if just by virtue of being in -mm for so
long), and have shown to greatly increase the availability of order>0 pages.
The sheer list of patches lined up behind this set is strong evidence that
there are useful features which depend on a working order>0. When you add in
the existing code that has to struggle with allocation failures or resort to
special pools (ie hugetlbfs), I see a clear vote for the need for this patch.
Some object because order>0 will still be able to fail. I point out that
order==0 can also fail, though we go to great lengths to prevent it. Mel's
patches raise the success rate of order>0 to within a few percent of
order==0. All this means is callers will need to decide how to handle the
infrequent failure. This should be true no matter what the order.
I strongly vote for merging these patches. Let's get them in mainline where
they can do some good.
Dave McCracken
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-10 14:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-10 10:20 Mel Gorman
2007-07-10 11:01 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2007-07-10 11:12 ` Mel Gorman
2007-07-10 11:38 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2007-07-10 15:50 ` Mel Gorman
2007-07-10 11:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-07-10 13:24 ` Mel Gorman
2007-07-10 13:03 ` Nick Piggin
2007-07-10 13:55 ` Mel Gorman
2007-07-10 18:47 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-07-10 18:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-07-11 9:48 ` Mel Gorman
2007-07-10 14:29 ` Dave McCracken [this message]
2007-07-10 15:23 ` Nick Piggin
2007-07-10 17:11 ` Dave McCracken
2007-07-11 2:59 ` Nick Piggin
2007-07-11 10:01 ` Mel Gorman
2007-07-11 13:03 ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-07-11 8:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-07-10 18:50 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-07-11 10:05 ` Mel Gorman
2007-07-12 19:29 ` Andrew Morton
2007-07-12 21:32 ` Mel Gorman
2007-07-13 15:56 ` [PATCH] Add a movablecore= parameter for sizing ZONE_MOVABLE Mel Gorman
2007-07-14 8:28 ` Nick Piggin
2007-07-14 13:02 ` Mel Gorman
2007-07-15 13:47 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2007-07-13 10:20 ` -mm merge plans -- anti-fragmentation Andy Whitcroft
2007-07-13 16:58 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-07-13 17:02 ` Nish Aravamudan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200707100929.46153.dave.mccracken@oracle.com \
--to=dave.mccracken@oracle.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apw@shadowen.org \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=jschopp@austin.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kenchen@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@skynet.ie \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox