From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2992639AbXCBRTU (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:19:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2992645AbXCBRTU (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:19:20 -0500 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:50793 "EHLO netops-testserver-3.corp.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992639AbXCBRTT (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:19:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 09:19:17 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter To: Mel Gorman cc: Andrew Morton , npiggin@suse.de, mingo@elte.hu, jschopp@austin.ibm.com, arjan@infradead.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mbligh@mbligh.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches In-Reply-To: <20070302163206.GA1555@skynet.ie> Message-ID: References: <20070301101249.GA29351@skynet.ie> <20070301160915.6da876c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070302163206.GA1555@skynet.ie> 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 On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Mel Gorman wrote: > However, if that is objectionable, I'd at least like to see zone-based patches > go into -mm on the expectation that the memory hot-remove patches will be > able to use the infrastructure. It's not ideal for hugepages and it is not my > first preference, but it's a step in the right direction. Is this reasonable? I still think that the list based approach is sufficient for memory hotplug if one restricts the location of the unmovable MAX_ORDER chunks to not overlap the memory area where we would like to be able to remove memory. In very pressing memory situations where we have too much unmovable memory we could dynamically disable memory hotplug. There would be no need for this partitioning and additional zones.