[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1001211514230.31073@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:34:39 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] Add /proc trigger for memory compaction
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > It would be helpful to be able to determine what is "compactable" at the
> > same time by adding both global and per-node "compact_order" tunables that
> > would default to HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER.
>
> Well, rather than having a separate tunable, writing a number to
> /proc/sys/vm/compact could indicate the order if that trigger is now
> working system-wide. Would that be suitable?
>
Do you think you'll eventually find a need to call try_to_compact_pages()
with a higher order than the one passed to the page allocator to limit
"compaction thrashing" from fragmented frees to a zone where we're
constantly compacting order-1 pages, for instance? I agree that memory
compaction should always be used before direct reclaim for higher order
allocations, but it may be more efficient to define a compact_min_order,
tunable from userspace, that would avoid the need for constant order-1
compactions from subsequent page allocations.
If that's a possibility, we may find a need for "compact_order", now
renamed "compact_min_order", outside of the explicit trigger.
--
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