linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] Allow huge page allocations to use GFP_HIGH

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701260944270.7457@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:45:47 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Allow huge page allocations to use GFP_HIGH_MOVABLE

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:

> It's come up a few times and the converation is always fairly similar although
> the thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/44 has interesting information on
> the topic. There has been no serious discussion on whether anti-fragmentation
> would help it or not. I think it would if atomic allocations were clustered
> together because then jumbo frame allocations would cluster together in the
> same MAX_ORDER blocks and tend to keep other allocations away.

They are clustered in both schemes together with other non movable allocs 
right? The problem is to defrag while atomic? How is the zone based 
concept different in that area from the max order block based one?


-
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/