From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:54:10 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Page allocator: Single Zone optimizations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <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: Mel Gorman Cc: Andy Whitcroft , Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Linux Memory Management List , Peter Zijlstra List-ID: On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Mel Gorman wrote: > Hence, I'm still convinced that slab pages for caches like inode and > short-lived allocations need to be clustered separetly. So the problem seems to be that some slab of "reclaimable" slabs are not reclaimable at all even with the most aggressive approach? Then we have a fundamental issue that we are unable to categorize pages correctly. EasyReclaimable pages may be unreclaimable because they are mlocked. Reclaimable (such as slab pages) may turn out to be not reclaimable because some entries are pinned. I think we will run into the same issues for EasyReclaim once an application generates a sufficient amount of mlocked pages that are placed all over the memory of interest. Could it be that the only reason that the current approach works is that we have not tested with an application that behaves this 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