On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 09:35:27AM -0500, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2025, at 9:25, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > As part of your series, I'd like to remove that limitation, so we'd need
> > to allocate log_64(n - m) [ok, more complex than that, but ykwim]. So
> > it's not quite "only allocate one node"
On 7 Feb 2025, at 9:25, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 09:11:39AM -0500, Zi Yan wrote:
>> Existing uniform split requires 2^(order % XA_CHUNK_SHIFT) xa_node
>> allocations
>> during split, when the folio needs to be split to order-0. But non-uniform
>> split
>> only requires at
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 09:11:39AM -0500, Zi Yan wrote:
> Existing uniform split requires 2^(order % XA_CHUNK_SHIFT) xa_node allocations
> during split, when the folio needs to be split to order-0. But non-uniform
> split
> only requires at most 1 xa_node allocation. For example, to split an order
On 6 Feb 2025, at 3:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 22:14:10 -0500 Zi Yan wrote:
>
>> This patchset adds a new buddy allocator like (or non-uniform) large folio
>> split to reduce the total number of after-split folios, the amount of memory
>> needed for multi-index xarray split, a
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 22:14:10 -0500 Zi Yan wrote:
> This patchset adds a new buddy allocator like (or non-uniform) large folio
> split to reduce the total number of after-split folios, the amount of memory
> needed for multi-index xarray split, and keep more large folios after a split.
It would b
Hi all,
This patchset adds a new buddy allocator like (or non-uniform) large folio
split to reduce the total number of after-split folios, the amount of memory
needed for multi-index xarray split, and keep more large folios after a split.
It is on top of mm-everything-2025-02-01-05-58. It is ready
6 matches
Mail list logo
