From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:09:02 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Smarter retry of costly-order allocations Message-Id: <20080415170902.4ec7aae5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080416000010.GF15840@us.ibm.com> References: <20080411233500.GA19078@us.ibm.com> <20080411233553.GB19078@us.ibm.com> <20080415000745.9af1b269.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080415172614.GE15840@us.ibm.com> <20080415121834.0aa406c4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080416000010.GF15840@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: mel@csn.ul.ie, clameter@sgi.com, apw@shadowen.org, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:00:10 -0700 Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > On 15.04.2008 [12:18:34 -0700], Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:26:14 -0700 > > Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > > > > So... would like to see some firmer-looking testing results, please. > > > > > > Do Mel's e-mails cover this sufficiently? > > > > I guess so. > > > > Could you please pull together a new set of changelogs sometime? > > Will do it tomorrow, for sure. > > > The big-picture change here is that we now use GFP_REPEAT for hugepages, > > which makes the allocations work better. But I assume that you hit some > > problem with that which led you to reduce the amount of effort which > > GFP_REPEAT will expend for larger pages, yes? > > > > If so, a description of that problem would be appropriate as well. > > Will add that, as well. > > Would you like me to repost the patch with the new changelog and just > ask you therein to drop and replace? Patches 1/3 and 3/3 should be > unchanged. > Sure, whatever, I'll work it out ;) -- 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: email@kvack.org