From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762242AbXGMRC6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:02:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755117AbXGMRCt (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:02:49 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]:54290 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750831AbXGMRCs (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:02:48 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=c8ZSNv4RoDR4S7Lz8DpFOomTNN3wnBqQyRScyLBtJq+zNeZUKybksyJ8QyW1m0mAYnTkNZi/1xlot4a46hT5GMQdGSeE2v0IgIm0rs9SEHONaKq/vePguXSaQhNBmZOHMB75Hwio8AzurCnrYepx7S/WX2aW3l6ihmIQdHwJeck= Message-ID: <29495f1d0707131002l6549b253o96a85efcb22aa56e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:02:46 -0700 From: "Nish Aravamudan" To: "Andy Whitcroft" Subject: Re: -mm merge plans -- anti-fragmentation Cc: "Andrew Morton" , "Mel Gorman" , npiggin@suse.de, kenchen@google.com, jschopp@austin.ibm.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com, clameter@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <469751E9.7060904@shadowen.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070710102043.GA20303@skynet.ie> <20070712122925.192a6601.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <469751E9.7060904@shadowen.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/13/07, Andy Whitcroft 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