linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>

  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