From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:45:47 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Allow huge page allocations to use GFP_HIGH_MOVABLE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20070125234458.28809.5412.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> <20070125234558.28809.21103.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mel Gorman Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Mel Gorman wrote: > It's come up a few times and the converation is always fairly similar although > the thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/44 has interesting information on > the topic. There has been no serious discussion on whether anti-fragmentation > would help it or not. I think it would if atomic allocations were clustered > together because then jumbo frame allocations would cluster together in the > same MAX_ORDER blocks and tend to keep other allocations away. They are clustered in both schemes together with other non movable allocs right? The problem is to defrag while atomic? How is the zone based concept different in that area from the max order block based one? -- 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