From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:49:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: 2.3.x mem balancing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: riel@nl.linux.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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/