Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:35:46 -0200 (BRDT) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: kmalloc() allocation. |
| |
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Ingo Oeser wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 02:40:16PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > If you write the defragmentation code for the VM, I'll > > be happy to bump up the limit a bit ... > > Should become easier once we start doing physical page scannings. > > We could record physical continous freeable areas on the fly > then. If someone asks for them later, we recheck whether they > still exists and free (inactive_clean) or remap (active or > inactive_dirty) the whole area, whether they are used or not. > > This could still be improved by using up smallest fit areas > first for kmalloc() based on these areas.
> Rik: What do you think about this (physical cont. area cache) for 2.5?
http://www.surriel.com/zone-alloc.html
cheers,
Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |