On (17/09/07 15:00), Christoph Lameter didst pronounce: > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > I don't know how it would prevent fragmentation from building up > > anyway. It's commonly the case that potentially unmovable objects > > are allowed to fill up all of ram (dentries, inodes, etc). > > Not in 2.6.23 with ZONE_MOVABLE. Unmovable objects are not allocated from > ZONE_MOVABLE and thus the memory that can be allocated for them is > limited. > As Nick points out, having to configure something makes it a #2 solution. However, I at least am ok with that. ZONE_MOVABLE is a get-out clause to be able to control fragmentation no matter what the workload is as it gives hard guarantees. Even when ZONE_MOVABLE is replaced by some mechanism in grouping pages by mobility to force a number of blocks to be MIGRATE_MOVABLE_ONLY, the emergency option will exist, We still lack data on what sort of workloads really benefit from large blocks (assuming there are any that cannot also be solved by improving order-0). With Christophs approach + grouping pages by mobility + ZONE_MOVABLE-if-it-screws-up, people can start collecting that data over the course of the next few months while we're waiting for fsblock or software pagesize to mature. Do we really need to keep discussing this as no new point has been made ina while? Can we at least take out the non-contentious parts of Christoph's patches such as the page cache macros and do something with them? -- Mel "tired of typing" Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
