From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 12:01:57 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated In-Reply-To: <20061205112541.2a4b7414.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20061130170746.GA11363@skynet.ie> <20061130173129.4ebccaa2.akpm@osdl.org> <20061201110103.08d0cf3d.akpm@osdl.org> <20061204140747.GA21662@skynet.ie> <20061204113051.4e90b249.akpm@osdl.org> <20061204120611.4306024e.akpm@osdl.org> <20061204131959.bdeeee41.akpm@osdl.org> <20061204142259.3cdda664.akpm@osdl.org> <20061205112541.2a4b7414.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Mel Gorman , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > We always run reclaim against the whole zone not against parts. Why > > would we start running reclaim against a portion of a zone? > > Oh for gawd's sake. Yes indeed. Another failure to answer a simple question. > If you want to allocate a page from within the first 1/4 of a zone, and if > all those pages are in use for something else then you'll need to run > reclaim against the first 1/4 of that zone. Or fail the allocation. Or > run reclaim against the entire zone. The second two options are > self-evidently dumb. Why would one want to allocate from the 1/4th of a zone? (Are we still discussing Mel's antifrag scheme or what is this about?) -- 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