Re: [PATCH 3/3] introduce HIGH_ORDER delineating easily reclaimable orders
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:28:43 -0700 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It would have been better to have patched page_alloc.c independently, then >> to have used HIGH_ORDER in "lumpy: increase pressure at the end of the >> inactive >> list". > > Actually that doesn't matter, because I plan on lumping all the lumpy patches > together into one lump. > > I was going to duck patches #2 and #3, such was my outrage. But given that > it's all lined up to be a single patch, followup cleanup patches will fit in > OK. Please. Yes. Its funny how you can get so close to a change that you can no longer see the obvious warts on it. I am actually travelling today, so it'll be tommorrow now. But I'll roll the cleanups and get them to you. I can also offer you a clean drop in lumpy stack with the HIGH_ORDER change pulled out to the top once you are happy. -apw - 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/
Re: [PATCH 3/3] introduce HIGH_ORDER delineating easily reclaimable orders
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:28:43 -0700 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It would have been better to have patched page_alloc.c independently, then > to have used HIGH_ORDER in "lumpy: increase pressure at the end of the > inactive > list". Actually that doesn't matter, because I plan on lumping all the lumpy patches together into one lump. I was going to duck patches #2 and #3, such was my outrage. But given that it's all lined up to be a single patch, followup cleanup patches will fit in OK. Please. - 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/
Re: [PATCH 3/3] introduce HIGH_ORDER delineating easily reclaimable orders
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:04:36 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The memory allocator treats lower order (order <= 3) and higher order > (order >= 4) allocations in slightly different ways. As lower orders > are much more likely to be available and also more likely to be > simply reclaimed it is deemed reasonable to wait longer for those. > Lumpy reclaim also changes behaviour at this same boundary, more > agressivly targetting pages in reclaim at higher order. > > This patch removes all these magical numbers and replaces with > with a constant HIGH_ORDER. oh, there we go. It would have been better to have patched page_alloc.c independently, then to have used HIGH_ORDER in "lumpy: increase pressure at the end of the inactive list". The name HIGH_ORDER is a bit squidgy. I'm not sure what would be better though. PAGE_ALLOC_CLUSTER_MAX? It'd be interesting to turn this into a runtime tunable, perhaps. - 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/
