Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:42:06 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19 |
| |
Martin J. Bligh wrote: >>Ahh, you're right, there's a totally separate watermark for highmem. >> >>I think I even remember this. I may even be responsible. I know some of >>our less successful highmem balancing efforts in the 2.4.x timeframe had >>serious trouble when they ran out of highmem, and started pruning lowmem >>very very aggressively. Limiting the highmem water marks meant that it >>wouldn't do that very often. >> >>I think your patch may in fact be fine, but quite frankly, it needs >>testing under real load with highmem. >>
I'd prefer not. The reason is that it increases the "min" watermark, which only gets used basically by GFP_ATOMIC and PF_MEMALLOC allocators - neither of which are likely to want highmem.
Also, I don't think anybody cares about higher order highmem allocations. At least the patches in this thread: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113082256231168&w=2
Should be applied before this. However they also need more testing so I'll be sending them to Andrew first.
Patch 2 does basically the same thing as your patch, without increasing the min watermark.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |