| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703020916330.16719@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 09:19:17 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com> To: Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie> cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, npiggin@...e.de, mingo@...e.hu, jschopp@...tin.ibm.com, arjan@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mbligh@...igh.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Mel Gorman wrote: > However, if that is objectionable, I'd at least like to see zone-based patches > go into -mm on the expectation that the memory hot-remove patches will be > able to use the infrastructure. It's not ideal for hugepages and it is not my > first preference, but it's a step in the right direction. Is this reasonable? I still think that the list based approach is sufficient for memory hotplug if one restricts the location of the unmovable MAX_ORDER chunks to not overlap the memory area where we would like to be able to remove memory. In very pressing memory situations where we have too much unmovable memory we could dynamically disable memory hotplug. There would be no need for this partitioning and additional zones. - 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