From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:25:44 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19 Message-ID: <45430000.1130858744@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <4366C559.5090504@yahoo.com.au> References: <20051030183354.22266.42795.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie><20051031055725.GA3820@w-mikek2.ibm.com><4365BBC4.2090906@yahoo.com.au> <20051030235440.6938a0e9.akpm@osdl.org> <27700000.1130769270@[10.10.2.4]> <4366A8D1.7020507@yahoo.com.au> <4366C559.5090504@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin , Mel Gorman Cc: Andrew Morton , kravetz@us.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Ingo Molnar List-ID: > I really don't think we *want* to say we support higher order allocations > absolutely robustly, nor do we want people using them if possible. Because > we don't. Even with your patches. > > Ingo also brought up this point at Ottawa. Some of the driver issues can be fixed by scatter-gather DMA *if* the h/w supports it. But what exactly do you propose to do about kernel stacks, etc? By the time you've fixed all the individual usages of it, frankly, it would be easier to provide a generic mechanism to fix the problem ... M. -- 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