linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim during high-order allocations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20101117154641.51fd7ce5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:46:41 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim
 during high-order allocations

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:22:41 +0000
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:

> Huge page allocations are not expected to be cheap but lumpy reclaim
> is still very disruptive.

Huge pages are boring.  Can we expect any benefit for the
stupid-nic-driver-which-does-order-4-GFP_ATOMIC-allocations problem?

>
> ...
>
> I haven't pushed hard on the concept of lumpy compaction yet and right
> now I don't intend to during this cycle. The initial prototypes did not
> behave as well as expected and this series improves the current situation
> a lot without introducing new algorithms. Hence, I'd like this series to
> be considered for merging.

Translation: "Andrew, wait for the next version"? :)

> I'm hoping that this series also removes the
> necessity for the "delete lumpy reclaim" patch from the THP tree.

Now I'm sad.  I read all that and was thinking "oh goody, we get to
delete something for once".  But no :(

If you can get this stuff to work nicely, why can't we remove lumpy
reclaim?
--
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/