[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46EE60C1.7030507@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:10:57 +0200
From: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
andrea@...e.de, 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)
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> True. That is why we want to limit the number of unmovable allocations and
> that is why ZONE_MOVABLE exists to limit those. However, unmovable
> allocations are already rare today. The overwhelming majority of
> allocations are movable and reclaimable. You can see that f.e. by looking
> at /proc/meminfo and see how high SUnreclaim: is (does not catch
> everything but its a good indicator).
Just to inject another factor into the discussion, please remember that
Linux also runs on nommu systems, where things like user space
allocations are neither movable nor reclaimable.
Bernd
--
This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers.
Analog Devices GmbH Wilhelm-Wagenfeld-Str. 6 80807 Muenchen
Sitz der Gesellschaft Muenchen, Registergericht Muenchen HRB 40368
Geschaeftsfuehrer Thomas Wessel, William A. Martin, Margaret Seif
-
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