From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:30:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Antifrag patchset comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Nick Piggin , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Indeed that is a good thing.... It would be good if a movable area > > would be a dynamic split of a zone and not be a separate zone that has to > > be configured on the kernel command line. > There are problems with doing that. In particular, the zone can only be sized > on one direction and can only be sized at the zone boundary because zones do > not currently overlap and I believe there will be assumptions made about them > not overlapping within a node. It's worth looking into in the future but I'm > putting it at the bottom of the TODO list. Its is better to have a dynamic limit rather than OOMing. > > > If the RECLAIMABLE areas could be properly targeted, it would make sense > > > to > > > mark these pages RECLAIMABLE instead but that is not the situation today. > > What is the problem with targeting? > It's currently not possible to target effectively. Could you be more specific? > > > Because they might be ramfs pages which are not movable - > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/24/150 > > > > URL does not provide any useful information regarding the issue. > > > > Not all pages allocated via shmem_alloc_page() are movable because they may > pages for ramfs. Not familiar with ramfs. There would have to be work on ramfs to make them movable? -- 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