[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090227113333.GA21296@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:33:33 +0100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
penberg@...helsinki.fi, riel@...hat.com,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ming.m.lin@...el.com,
yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/20] Get rid of the concept of hot/cold page freeing
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:30:45PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > > I tried the general use of a pool of zeroed pages back in 2005. Zeroing
> > > made sense only if the code allocating the page did not immediately touch
> > > the cachelines of the page.
> >
> > Any feeling as to how often this was the case?
>
> Not often enough to justify the merging of my patches at the time. This
> was publicly discussed on lkml:
>
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0503.2/0482.html
>
> > Indeed, any gain if it existed would be avoiding zeroing the pages used
> > by userspace. The cleanup would be reducing the amount of
> > architecture-specific code.
> >
> > I reckon it's worth an investigate but there is still other lower-lying
> > fruit.
>
> I hope we can get rid of various ugly elements of the quicklists if the
> page allocator would offer some sort of support. I would think that the
Only if it provides significant advantages over existing quicklists or
adds *no* extra overhead to the page allocator common cases. :)
--
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