Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:02:46 -0700 | From | "Nish Aravamudan" <> | Subject | Re: -mm merge plans -- anti-fragmentation |
| |
On 7/13/07, Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:20:43 +0100 > > mel@skynet.ie (Mel Gorman) wrote: > > > >>> create-the-zone_movable-zone.patch > >>> allow-huge-page-allocations-to-use-gfp_high_movable.patch > >>> handle-kernelcore=-generic.patch > >>> > >>> Mel's moveable-zone work. In a similar situation. We need to stop whatever > >>> we're doing and get down and work out what we're going to do with all this > >>> stuff. > >>> > >> Whatever about grouping pages by mobility, I would like to see these go > >> through. They have a real application for hugetlb pool resizing where the > >> administrator knows the range of hugepages that will be required but doesn't > >> want to waste memory when the required number of hugepages is small. I've > >> cc'd Kenneth Chen as I believe he has run into this problem recently where > >> I believe partitioning memory would have helped. He'll either confirm or deny. > > > > Still no decision here, really. > > > > Should we at least go for > > > > add-__gfp_movable-for-callers-to-flag-allocations-from-high-memory-that-may-be-migrated.patch > > create-the-zone_movable-zone.patch > > allow-huge-page-allocations-to-use-gfp_high_movable.patch > > handle-kernelcore=-generic.patch > > > > in 2.6.23? > > These patches are pretty simple and self-contained utilising the > existing zone infrastructure. They provide a significant degree of > placement control when configured, which gives a lot of the benefits of > grouping-pages-by-mobility. Merging these would seem like a low-risk > option. > > Having a degree of placement control as delivered by ZONE_MOVABLE > greatly increases the effectiveness of lumpy reclaim at higher orders. > These patches plus lumpy would (IMO) provide a good base for further > development. In particular I would envisage better usability for > hugepage users in terms of simpler configuration.
This is also where I (as a libhugetlbfs maintainer/developer) see these patches being very helpful (for example, see Adam Litke's recent posting on resizing the hugepage pool dynamically). Making hugepages "easier" to use -- and in this case that means more likely to successfully resize the hugepage pool at run-time -- is a good thing.
> I would like to see ZONE_MOVABLE and lumpy considered for 2.6.23.
Ack.
Thanks, Nish - 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/
| |