[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55BECC85.7050206@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:05:57 +0800
From: Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@...wei.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC: 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>,
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 2015/8/1 7:24, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 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
Hi Dave,
I made a mistake, you are right, all the lower-order lists are empty,
so it is no sense to add to the tail.
Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
> 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