From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j4PI55mD020708 for ; Wed, 25 May 2005 14:05:05 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j4PI553f078304 for ; Wed, 25 May 2005 12:05:05 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j4PI54hL017782 for ; Wed, 25 May 2005 12:05:05 -0600 Message-ID: <4294BE45.3000502@austin.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 13:04:53 -0500 From: Joel Schopp Reply-To: jschopp@austin.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Avoiding external fragmentation with a placement policy Version 11 References: <20050522200507.6ED7AECFC@skynet.csn.ul.ie> In-Reply-To: <20050522200507.6ED7AECFC@skynet.csn.ul.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mel Gorman Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org List-ID: > Changelog since V10 > > o Important - All allocation types now use per-cpu caches like the standard > allocator. Older versions may have trouble with large numbers of processors Do you have a new set of benchmarks we could see? The ones you had for v10 were pretty useful. > o Removed all the additional buddy allocator statistic code Is there a separate patch for the statistic code or is it no longer being maintained? > +/* > + * Shared per-cpu lists would cause fragmentation over time > + * The pcpu_list is to keep kernel and userrclm allocations > + * apart while still allowing all allocation types to have > + * per-cpu lists > + */ Why are kernel nonreclaimable and kernel reclaimable joined here? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just ignorant and need some education. > +struct pcpu_list { > + int count; > + struct list_head list; > +} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; > + > struct per_cpu_pages { > - int count; /* number of pages in the list */ > + struct pcpu_list pcpu_list[2]; /* 0: kernel 1: user */ > int low; /* low watermark, refill needed */ > int high; /* high watermark, emptying needed */ > int batch; /* chunk size for buddy add/remove */ > - struct list_head list; /* the list of pages */ > }; > Instead of defining 0 and 1 in a comment why not use a #define? > + pcp->pcpu_list[0].count = 0; > + pcp->pcpu_list[1].count = 0; The #define would make code like this look more readable. -- 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: aart@kvack.org