[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709171508520.29993@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@...nline.de>
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)
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> 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.
Hmmm.... However, sorting of the allocations would result in avoiding
defragmentation to some degree?
-
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