[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612041211390.32337@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:17:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
cc: Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that
may be migrated
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The multi zone approach does not work with NUMA. NUMA only supports a
> > single zone for memory policy control etc.
>
> Wot? memory policies are a per-vma thing?
They only apply to "policy_zone" of a node. policy_zone can only take a
single type of zone (has been like it forever). Multiple zones could
become a nightmare with an exploding number of zones on zonelists. I.e.
instead of 1k zones on a nodelist we now have 2k for two or even 4k if you
want to have support for memory policies for 4 zones per node. We will
then increase the search time through zonelists and have to manage all the
memory in the different zones. Balancing is going to be difficult.
> I suspect you'll have to live with that. I've yet to see a vaguely sane
> proposal to otherwise prevent unreclaimable, unmoveable kernel allocations
> from landing in a hot-unpluggable physical memory region.
Mel's approach already mananges memory in a chunks of MAX_ORDER. It is
easy to just restrict the unmovable types of allocation to a section of
the zone.
Then we should be doing some work to cut down the number of unmovable
allocations.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists