[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches
    On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 11:44:05PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
    > On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > > Sure we will. And you believe that the the newer controllers will be able
    > > > to magically shrink the the SG lists somehow? We will offload the
    > > > coalescing of the page structs into bios in hardware or some such thing?
    > > > And the vmscans etc too?
    > >
    > > As far as pagecache page management goes, is that an issue for you?
    > > I don't want to know about how many billions of pages for some operation,
    > > just some profiles.
    > If there are billions of pages in the system and we are allocating and
    > deallocating then pages need to be aged. If there are just few pages
    > freeable then we run into issues.

    page writeout and vmscan don't work too badly. What are the issues?

    > > > > I understand you have controllers (or maybe it is a block layer limit)
    > > > > that doesn't work well with 4K pages, but works OK with 16K pages.
    > > > Really? This is the first that I have heard about it.
    > > Maybe that's the issue you're running into.
    > Oh, I am running into an issue on a system that does not yet exist? I am
    > extrapolating from the problems that we commonly see now. Those will get
    > worse the more memory increases.

    So what problems that you commonly see now? Some of us here don't
    have 4TB of memory, so you actually have to tell us ;)

    > > > > This is not something that we would introduce variable sized pagecache
    > > > > for, surely.
    > > > I am not sure where you get the idea that this is the sole reason why we
    > > > need to be able to handle larger contiguous chunks of memory.
    > > I'm not saying that. You brought up this subject of variable sized pagecache.
    > You keep bringing up the 4k/16k issue into this for some reason. I want
    > just the ability to handle large amounts of memory. Larger page sizes are
    > a way to accomplish that.

    As I said in my other mail to you, Linux runs on systems with 6 orders
    of magnitude more struct pages than when it was first created. What's
    the problem?

    > > Eventually, increasing x86 page size a bit might be an idea. We could even
    > > do it in software if CPU manufacturers don't for us.
    > A bit? Are we back to the 4k/16k issue? We need to reach 2M at mininum.
    > Some way to handle continuous memory segments of 1GB and larger
    > effectively would be great.

    How did you come up with that 2MB number?

    Anyway, we have hugetlbfs for things like that.

    > > That doesn't buy us a great deal if you think there is this huge looming
    > > problem with struct page management though.
    > I am not the first one.... See Rik's posts regarding the reasons for his
    > new page replacement algorithms.

    Different issue, isn't it? Rik wants to be smarter in figuring out which
    pages to throw away. More work per page == worse for you.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-03-02 09:15    [W:0.021 / U:4.388 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site