lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches
    >> Exhibiting a workload where the list patch breaks down and the zone
    >> patch rescues it might help if it's felt that the combination isn't as
    >> good as lists in isolation. I'm sure one can be dredged up somewhere.
    >
    > I can't think of a workload that totally makes a mess out of list-based.
    > However, list-based makes no guarantees on availability. If a system
    > administrator knows they need between 10,000 and 100,000 huge pages and
    > doesn't want to waste memory pinning too many huge pages at boot-time,
    > the zone-based mechanism would be what he wanted.

    From our testing with earlier versions of list based for memory hot-unplug on
    pSeries machines we were able to hot-unplug huge amounts of memory after running the
    nastiest workloads we could find for over a week. Without the patches we were unable
    to hot-unplug anything within minutes of running the same workloads.

    If something works for 99.999% of people (list based) and there is an easy way to
    configure it for the other 0.001% of the people ("zone" based) I call that a great
    solution. I really don't understand what the resistance is to these patches.

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-03-02 17:35    [W:0.021 / U:30.308 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site