> > Please could you elaborate a little more why depending on > > compaction to satisfy other high-order allocation is not good. > > > > At the very least, it's not a situation that has been tested heavily and > because other high-order allocations are typically not movable. In the > worst case, if they are both frequent and long-lived they *may* eventually > encounter fragmentation-related problems. This uncertainity is why it's > not good. It gets worse if there is no swap as eventually all movable pages > will be compacted as much as possible but there still might not be enough > contiguous memory for a high-order page because other pages are pinned. I am interested in this topic too. How about using compaction for infrequent short-lived high-order allocations? Is there any problem in that case? (apart from the point that it is not tested for that purpose) Also how about using compaction as a preparation for partial refresh? RR -------------------------------------- Get the new Internet Explorer 8 optimized for Yahoo! JAPAN http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/ie8/ -- 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