[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070302085838.bcf9099e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 08:58:38 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>, npiggin@...e.de, clameter@...r.sgi.com,
mingo@...e.hu, jschopp@...tin.ibm.com, arjan@...radead.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mbligh@...igh.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related
patches
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:29:58 -0500 Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > And I'd judge that per-container RSS limits are of considerably more value
> > than antifrag (in fact per-container RSS might be a superset of antifrag,
> > in the sense that per-container RSS and containers could be abused to fix
> > the i-cant-get-any-hugepages problem, dunno).
>
> The RSS bits really worry me, since it looks like they could
> exacerbate the scalability problems that we are already running
> into on very large memory systems.
Using a zone-per-container or N-64MB-zones-per-container should actually
move us in the direction of *fixing* any such problems. Because, to a
first-order, the scanning of such a zone has the same behaviour as a 64MB
machine.
(We'd run into a few other problems, some related to the globalness of the
dirty-memory management, but that's fixable).
> Linux is *not* happy on 256GB systems. Even on some 32GB systems
> the swappiness setting *needs* to be tweaked before Linux will even
> run in a reasonable way.
Please send testcases.
-
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