From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270384AbTHBUjS (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:39:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270383AbTHBUjR (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:39:17 -0400 Received: from web9706.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.129.241]:36281 "HELO web9706.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S270384AbTHBUjH (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:39:07 -0400 Message-ID: <20030802203906.69080.qmail@web9706.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:39:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Alok Mooley Subject: Active Memory Defragmentation : Need? To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: us MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Why is Active Memory Defragmentation needed? (Reference : Paper by Daniel Phillips , titled "Patch:My research agenda for 2.7"). Is there any case or example of the Linux memory allocator (buddy allocator) failing due to memory fragmentation? If yes,what sorts of programs or applications cause this failure? Could anyone kindly supply me with statistical data & arguments to justify the need for Active Memory Defragmentation? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com