On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tuesday 18 September 2007 08:00, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > 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. > > Why would ZONE_MOVABLE require that "movable objects should be moved > out of the way for unmovable ones"? It never _has_ any unmovable objects in > it. Quite obviously we were not talking about reserve zones. This was a response to your statement all of memory could be filled up by unmovable objects. Which cannot occur if the memory for unmovable objects is limited. Not sure what you mean by reserves? Mel's reserves? The reserves for unmovable objects established by ZONE_MOVABLE? - 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
