From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] introduce HIGH_ORDER delineating easily reclaimable orders
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:28:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070421012843.f5a814eb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cc3c22ba296c3d75cd7bd66747fb08c0@pinky>
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:04:36 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> 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.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] introduce HIGH_ORDER delineating easily reclaimable orders
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:28:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070421012843.f5a814eb.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cc3c22ba296c3d75cd7bd66747fb08c0@pinky>
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:04:36 +0100 Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-21 8:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-20 15:03 [PATCH 0/3] Lumpy Reclaim V6 Andy Whitcroft
2007-04-20 15:03 ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-04-20 15:03 ` [PATCH 1/3] kswapd: use reclaim order in background reclaim Andy Whitcroft
2007-04-20 15:03 ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-04-20 15:04 ` [PATCH 2/3] lumpy: increase pressure at the end of the inactive list Andy Whitcroft
2007-04-20 15:04 ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-04-21 8:24 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-21 8:24 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-20 15:04 ` [PATCH 3/3] introduce HIGH_ORDER delineating easily reclaimable orders Andy Whitcroft
2007-04-20 15:04 ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-04-21 8:28 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2007-04-21 8:28 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-21 8:32 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-21 8:32 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-23 10:23 ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-04-23 10:23 ` Andy Whitcroft
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070421012843.f5a814eb.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apw@shadowen.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.