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 e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0JJOqte003410 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:24:52 -0500 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k0JJR2Up176536 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:27:02 -0700 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k0JJOpX9012114 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:24:51 -0700 Message-ID: <43CFE77B.3090708@austin.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:24:43 -0600 From: Joel Schopp MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reducing fragmentation using zones References: <20060119190846.16909.14133.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie> In-Reply-To: <20060119190846.16909.14133.sendpatchset@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, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-ID: > Benchmark comparison between -mm+NoOOM tree and with the new zones I know you had also previously posted a very simplified version of your real fragmentation avoidance patches. I was curious if you could repost those with the other benchmarks for a 3 way comparison. The simplified version got rid of a lot of the complexity people were complaining about and in my mind still seems like preferable direction. Zone based approaches are runtime inflexible and require boot time tuning by the sysadmin. There are lots of workloads that "reasonable" defaults for a zone based approach would cause the system to regress terribly. -Joel -- 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