[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070421012843.f5a814eb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:28:43 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] introduce HIGH_ORDER delineating easily reclaimable
orders
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:04:36 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> wrote:
> The memory allocator treats lower order (order <= 3) and higher order
> (order >= 4) allocations in slightly different ways. As lower orders
> are much more likely to be available and also more likely to be
> simply reclaimed it is deemed reasonable to wait longer for those.
> Lumpy reclaim also changes behaviour at this same boundary, more
> agressivly targetting pages in reclaim at higher order.
>
> This patch removes all these magical numbers and replaces with
> with a constant HIGH_ORDER.
oh, there we go.
It would have been better to have patched page_alloc.c independently, then
to have used HIGH_ORDER in "lumpy: increase pressure at the end of the inactive
list".
The name HIGH_ORDER is a bit squidgy. I'm not sure what would be better though.
PAGE_ALLOC_CLUSTER_MAX?
It'd be interesting to turn this into a runtime tunable, perhaps.
-
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