Re: About the free page pool

William Lee Irwin III
2002-09-03T05:43:30Z

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Are you referring to boot-time allocations using get_free_pages()
>> instead of bootmem? Killing those off would be nice, yes. It limits
>> the size of some hash tables on larger machines where "proportional
>> to memory" means "bigger than MAX_ORDER". (Changing the algorithms to
>> not use gargantuan hash tables might also be an interesting exercise
>> but one I've not got the bandwidth to take on.)

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:43:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nope. I'm referring to 1.5 megabytes lost to anonymous kmallocs,
> two or three megabytes of biovec mempools, etc. And that's with
> NR_CPUS=4, and that's excluding all the statically allocated
> array[NR_CPUS]s.

Slightly different then. I don't know of anyone regularly testing 2.5.x
on 4MB machines, which might need a bit of help on this front if more
memory than they have is flushed down the toilet at boot.

I've got a collection of ancient toasters but the ports aren't booting,
and for reasons far deeper than this. 4MB bochs/x86 laptop? No time. =(

Cheers,
Bill