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:0.535 / U:1.004 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site