From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:29:22 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] mm: slab allocation fairness In-Reply-To: <1164917715.6588.177.camel@twins> Message-ID: References: <20061130101451.495412000@chello.nl> > <20061130101921.113055000@chello.nl> > <1164913365.6588.156.camel@twins> <1164915612.6588.171.camel@twins> <1164917715.6588.177.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, David Miller List-ID: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Sure, but there is nothing wrong with using a slab page with a lower > > > allocation rank when there is memory aplenty. > > What does "a slab page with a lower allocation rank" mean? Slab pages have > > no allocation ranks that I am aware of. > I just added allocation rank and didn't you suggest tracking it for all > slab pages instead of per slab? Yes but that is not in place so I was wondering what you were talking about. It would help to have some longer text describing what you intend to do and how rank would work throughout the VM. -- 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