[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations that may be migrated
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > > 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?
> >
> > Why would we run reclaim against a section of a zone?
> Strange question. Because all the pages are in use for something else.

We always run reclaim against the whole zone not against parts. Why
would we start running reclaim against a portion of a zone?

> > Mel aready has that for anti-frag. The sections are per MAX_ORDER area
> > and the only states are movable unmovable and reclaimable. There is
> > nothing more to it. No other state information should be added. Why would
> > we need sub zones? For what purpose?
> You're proposing that for memory hot-unplug, we take a single zone and by
> some means subdivide that into sections which correspond to physically
> hot-unpluggable memory. That certainly does not map onto MAX_ORDER
> sections.

Mel's patches are already managing "sections" (if you want to call it
that) of a zone in units of MAX_ORDER. If we memorize where the lowest
unmovable MAX_ORDER block is then we have the necessary separation and can
do memory unplug on the remainder of the zone.

> > What feature are you talking about?
> Memory hot-unplug, of course.

There are multiple issues that we discuss here. Please be clear.
Categorical demands for perfection certainly wont help us.
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: 2006-12-05 17:03    [W:0.059 / U:14.568 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site