Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] beat kswapd with the proverbial clue-bat

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

David S. Miller wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:44:18 +1000
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
>>So my solution? Just teach kswapd and the watermark code about higher
>>order allocations in a fairly simple way. If pages_low is (say), 1024KB,
>>we now also require 512KB of order-1 and above pages, 256K of order-2
>>and up, 128K of order 3, etc. (perhaps we should stop at about order-3?)
> 
> 
> Whether to stop at order 3 is indeed an interesting question.
> 
> The reality is that the high-order allocations come mostly from folks
> using jumbo 9K MTUs on gigabit and faster technologies.  On x86, an
> order 2 would cover those packet allocations, but on sparc64 for example
> order 1 would be enough, whereas on a 2K PAGE_SIZE system order 3 would
> be necessary.
> 

Yeah I see.

> People using e1000 cards are hitting this case, and some of the e1000
> developers are going to play around with using page array based SKBs
> (via the existing SKB page frags mechanism).  So instead of allocating
> a huge linear chunk for RX packets, they'll allocate a header area of
> 256 bytes then an array of pages to cover the rest.
> 

Yes, I guess that would be ideal from the memory manager's POV.

> Right now, my current suggestion would not be to stop at a certain order.
> 

OK I'll keep it as is and we'll see how that goes. Thanks.