From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:08:36 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Page allocator: Single Zone optimizations In-Reply-To: <454A2CE5.6080003@shadowen.org> Message-ID: References: <20061027190452.6ff86cae.akpm@osdl.org> <20061027192429.42bb4be4.akpm@osdl.org> <20061027214324.4f80e992.akpm@osdl.org> <20061028180402.7c3e6ad8.akpm@osdl.org> <4544914F.3000502@yahoo.com.au> <20061101182605.GC27386@skynet.ie> <20061101123451.3fd6cfa4.akpm@osdl.org> <454A2CE5.6080003@shadowen.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andy Whitcroft Cc: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Nick Piggin , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Linux Memory Management List , Peter Zijlstra List-ID: On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > with no reclaimable blocks regardless of algorithm. Unless we are going > to allow all pages to be reclaimed (which is a massive job of > unthinkable proportions IMO) then we need some kind of placement scheme > to aid reclaim. The pages clearly need to be separated according to movable and unmovable. However, I think reclaimable needs to be the default and some simple measures will make a significant portion of the pages that we cannot currently move movable. Unmovable pages need to be managed with some sort of special scheme and are need to be kept together in a separate pool or something, They do not need memory policy support f.e. Regular allocations should be left unchanged and continue to be handled as is. Unmovable pages may have a special flag or be handled in some special way. -- 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