Re: 2.3.x mem balancing

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>> 
>> NUMA is irrelevant. If there's no inclusion the classzone matches with the
>> zone.
>
>But then all your arguments evaporate.
>
>If you argue that memory balancing should work even in the instance where
>the classzone has degenerated into a single zone, [..]

Yes, I argue this otherwise my alpha box would not run stable anymore ;).

>[..] then I'll just say "why
>have the classzone concept at all, then?".

Because it's necessary to handle correctly the other case: setups where we
have to handle overlapped zones.

Note that the ZONE_DMA is classzone composed by one single zone too and of
course memory balancing have to work correctly with ZONE_DMA too.

>I think we should have zones. Not classzones. And we should have
>"zonelists", but those would not be first-class data structures, they'd
>just be lists of zones that are acceptable for an allocation.

My only problem is that I don't see how to solve the subtle drawbacks
elecated in my previous emails by keeping the strict zone based approch
and without considering the other zone_t that compose the real zone
(classzone) that we want to allocate from.

Andrea

--
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.eu.org/Linux-MM/