[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709111311330.25781@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>
cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...il.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...il.com>,
swin wang <wangswin@...il.com>, totty.lu@...il.com,
hugh@...itas.com, joern@...ybastard.org
Subject: Re: [00/41] Large Blocksize Support V7 (adds memmap support)
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> But the whole point is that with the config_page_shift, Nick's worst
> case scenario can't happen by design regardless of defrag or not
> defrag. While it can _definitely_ happen with SGI design (regardless
> of any defrag thing). We can still try to save some memory by
> defragging the slab a bit, but it's by far *not* required with
> config_page_shift. No defrag at all is required infact.
Which worst case scenario? So far this is all a bit foggy.
> Let's see how good the mmap support for variable order page size will
> work after the 2 weeks...
Yeah. Give us some failure scenarios please!
-
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