[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55BC0392.2070205@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:24:02 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com, sasha.levin@...cle.com
CC: Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add the block to the tail of the list in expand()
On 07/31/2015 02:30 AM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
> __free_one_page() will judge whether the the next-highest order is free,
> then add the block to the tail or not. So when we split large order block,
> add the small block to the tail, it will reduce fragment.
It's an interesting idea, but what does it do in practice? Can you
measure a decrease in fragmentation?
Further, the comment above the function says:
* The order of subdivision here is critical for the IO subsystem.
* Please do not alter this order without good reasons and regression
* testing.
Has there been regression testing?
Also, this might not do very much good in practice. If you are
splitting a high-order page, you are doing the split because the
lower-order lists are empty. So won't that list_add() be to an empty
list most of the time? Or does the __rmqueue_fallback()
largest->smallest logic dominate?
--
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