[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200709181011.17975.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:11:17 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@...ormatik.uni-tuebingen.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joern Engel <joern@...fs.org>, andrea@...e.de,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
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
Subject: Re: [00/41] Large Blocksize Support V7 (adds memmap support)
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 08:00, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I don't know how it would prevent fragmentation from building up
> > anyway. It's commonly the case that potentially unmovable objects
> > are allowed to fill up all of ram (dentries, inodes, etc).
>
> Not in 2.6.23 with ZONE_MOVABLE. Unmovable objects are not allocated from
> ZONE_MOVABLE and thus the memory that can be allocated for them is
> limited.
Why would ZONE_MOVABLE require that "movable objects should be moved
out of the way for unmovable ones"? It never _has_ any unmovable objects in
it. Quite obviously we were not talking about reserve 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