> +/*
> + * A fragmentation index only makes sense if an allocation of a requested
> + * size would fail. If that is true, the fragmentation index indicates
> + * whether external fragmentation or a lack of memory was the problem.
> + * The value can be used to determine if page reclaim or compaction
> + * should be used
> + */
> +int fragmentation_index(unsigned int order, struct contig_page_info *info)
> +{
> + unsigned long requested = 1UL << order;
> +
> + if (!info->free_blocks_total)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Fragmentation index only makes sense when a request would fail */
> + if (info->free_blocks_suitable)
> + return -1000;
> +
> + /*
> + * Index is between 0 and 1 so return within 3 decimal places
> + *
> + * 0 => allocation would fail due to lack of memory
> + * 1 => allocation would fail due to fragmentation
> + */
> + return 1000 - ( (1000+(info->free_pages * 1000 / requested)) / info->free_blocks_total);
> +}
Dumb question.
your paper (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1375634.1375641) says
fragmentation_index = 1 - (TotalFree/SizeRequested)/BlocksFree
but your code have extra '1000+'. Why?
Probably, I haven't understand the intention of this calculation.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>