lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:17:26 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:

> > I suspect you'll have to live with that. I've yet to see a vaguely sane
> > proposal to otherwise prevent unreclaimable, unmoveable kernel allocations
> > from landing in a hot-unpluggable physical memory region.
>
> Mel's approach already mananges memory in a chunks of MAX_ORDER. It is
> easy to just restrict the unmovable types of allocation to a section of
> the zone.

What happens when we need to run reclaim against just a section of a zone?
Lumpy-reclaim could be used here; perhaps that's Mel's approach too?

We'd need new infrastructure to perform the
section-of-a-zone<->physical-memory-block mapping, and to track various
states of the section-of-a-zone. This will be complex, and buggy. It will
probably require the introduction of some sort of "sub-zone" structure. At
which stage people would be justified in asking "why didn't you just use
zones - that's what they're for?"

> Then we should be doing some work to cut down the number of unmovable
> allocations.

That's rather pointless. A feature is either reliable or it is not. We'll
never be able to make all kernel allocations reclaimable/moveable so we'll
never be reliable with this approach. I don't see any alternative to the
never-allocate-kernel-objects-in-removeable-memory approach.
-
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: 2006-12-04 22:23    [W:0.057 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site