On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 04/28/2015 09:45 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 09:29:23AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >>On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:23:41PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>>We already have antifragmentation policy in page allocat
On 04/28/2015 09:45 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 09:29:23AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:23:41PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
We already have antifragmentation policy in page allocator. It works well
when system memory is sufficient, but, it doesn't works w
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 09:29:23AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:23:41PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > We already have antifragmentation policy in page allocator. It works well
> > when system memory is sufficient, but, it doesn't works well when system
> > memory isn't suff
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:23:41PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> We already have antifragmentation policy in page allocator. It works well
> when system memory is sufficient, but, it doesn't works well when system
> memory isn't sufficient because memory is already highly fragmented and
> fallback/st
We already have antifragmentation policy in page allocator. It works well
when system memory is sufficient, but, it doesn't works well when system
memory isn't sufficient because memory is already highly fragmented and
fallback/steal mechanism cannot get whole pageblock. If there is severe
unmovabl
5 matches
Mail list logo