From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 22:12:52 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Apply memory policies to top two highest zones when highest zone is ZONE_MOVABLE Message-Id: <20070806221252.aa1e9048.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070806215541.GC6142@skynet.ie> References: <20070802172118.GD23133@skynet.ie> <200708040002.18167.ak@suse.de> <20070806121558.e1977ba5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200708062231.49247.ak@suse.de> <20070806215541.GC6142@skynet.ie> 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: Andi Kleen , Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, clameter@sgi.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 22:55:41 +0100 mel@skynet.ie (Mel Gorman) wrote: > On (06/08/07 22:31), Andi Kleen didst pronounce: > > > > > If correct, I would suggest merging the horrible hack for .23 then taking > > > it out when we merge "grouping pages by mobility". But what if we don't do > > > that merge? > > > > Or disable ZONE_MOVABLE until it is usable? > > It's usable now. The issue with policies only occurs if the user specifies > kernelcore= or movablecore= on the command-line. Your language suggests > that you believe policies are not applied when ZONE_MOVABLE is configured > at build-time. So.. the problem which we're fixing here is only present when someone use kernelcore=. This is in fact an argument for _not_ merging the horrible-hack. How commonly do we expect people to specify kernelcore=? If "not much" then it isn't worth adding the __alloc_pages() overhead? (It's a pretty darn small overhead, I must say) -- 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