Re: [PATCH 3/8] Allow huge page allocations to use GFP_HIGH_MOVABLE
From: Mel Gorman
Date: Fri Jan 26 2007 - 12:53:43 EST
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:
It's come up a few times and the converation is always fairly similar although
the thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/44 has interesting information on
the topic. There has been no serious discussion on whether anti-fragmentation
would help it or not. I think it would if atomic allocations were clustered
together because then jumbo frame allocations would cluster together in the
same MAX_ORDER blocks and tend to keep other allocations away.
They are clustered in both schemes together with other non movable allocs
right?
For the jumbo frame problem, only the antifragmentation approach of
clustering types of pages together in MAX_ORDER blocks has any chance of
helping.
The problem is to defrag while atomic?
Worse, the problem is to have high order contiguous blocks free at the
time of allocation without reclaim or migration. If the allocations were
not atomic, anti-fragmentation as it is today would be enough.
By clustering atomic allocations together though, I would expect the jumbo
frames to be allocated and freed within the same area without interference
from other allocation types as long as min_free_kbytes was also set higher
than default. I lack the hardware to prove/disprove the idea though.
How is the zone based
concept different in that area from the max order block based one?
The zone-based approach does nothing to help jumbo frame allocations. It
only helps hugepage allocations at runtime and potentially memory
hot-remove.
--
Mel 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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/