On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 09:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:02:51 -0400 > Lee Schermerhorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [But, maybe reordering the zonelists is not such a good idea > > when ZONE_MOVABLE is populated?] > > > > It's case-by-case I think. In zone order with ZONE_MOVABLE case, > user's page cache will not use ZONE_NORMAL until ZONE_MOVABLE in all node > is exhausted. This is an expected behavior, I think. > > I think the real problem is the scheme for "How to set zone movable size to > appropriate value for the system". This needs more study and documentation. > (but maybe depends on system configuration to some extent.)
Yes. Having thought about it a bit more, maybe zone order IS what we want if we desire the remainder of the zone from which is was taken [ZONE_MOVABLE-1] to be reserved for non-movable kernel use as long as possible--similar to the dma zone. I had made the non-movable zone very large for testing, so that I could create a segment that used all of the movable zones on all the nodes and then dip into the non-movable/normal zone. If I used a more reasonable [much smaller] amount of kernelcore, the interleave would have worked as "expected". Of course, I don't have any idea of what is a "reasonable amount". Guess I could look at non-movable zone memory usage in a system at typical or peak load to get an idea. Anyone have any data in this regard? Lee - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
