On 02/02/2012 06:44 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:47:31 +0800 > Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> If the required size is bigger than cached_hole_size, we would better search >> from free_area_cache, it is more easier to get free region, specifically for >> the 64 bit process whose address space is large enough >> >> Do it just as hugetlb_get_unmapped_area_topdown() in arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c > > Can this cause additional fragmentation of the virtual address region? > If so, what might be the implications of this? Hmm, i think it is not bad since we have cached_hole_size, and, this way is also used in other functions and architectures(arch_get_unmapped_area, hugetlb_get_unmapped_area_bottomup, hugetlb_get_unmapped_area_topdown......). -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>