![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread
|
[Seems a PEBKAC occured on the subject line, resending lest it become a victim of "oh thats spam".] Andy Whitcroft wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > [...] >> lumpy-reclaim-v4.patch >> have-kswapd-keep-a-minimum-order-free-other-than-order-0.patch >> only-check-absolute-watermarks-for-alloc_high-and-alloc_harder-allocations.patch >> >> Lumpy reclaim. In a similar situation to Mel's patches. Stuck due to >> general lack or interest and effort. > > The lumpy reclaim patches originally came out of work to support Mel's > anti-fragmentation work. As such I think they have become somewhat > attached to those patches. Whilst lumpy is most effective where > placement controls are in place as offered by Mel's work, we see benefit > from reduction in the "blunderbuss" effect when we reclaim at higher > orders. While placement control is pretty much required for the very > highest orders such as huge page size, lower order allocations are > benefited in terms of lower collateral damage. > > There are now a few areas other than huge page allocations which can > benefit. Stacks are still order 1. Jumbo frames want higher order > contiguous pages for there incoming hardware buffers. SLUB is showing > performance benefits from moving to a higher allocation order. All of > these should benefit from more aggressive targeted reclaim, indeed I > have been surprised just how often my test workloads trigger lumpy at > order 1 to get new stacks. > > Truly representative work loads are hard to generate for some of these. > Though we have heard some encouraging noises from those who can > reproduce these problems. > > [...] > > -apw - 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: 2007-07-11 11:37 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||