From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 09:09:30 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches In-Reply-To: <20070302083832.GF5557@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20070302054944.GE15867@wotan.suse.de> <20070302060831.GF15867@wotan.suse.de> <20070302062950.GG15867@wotan.suse.de> <20070302071955.GA5557@wotan.suse.de> <20070302081210.GD5557@wotan.suse.de> <20070302083832.GF5557@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , mingo@elte.hu, jschopp@austin.ibm.com, arjan@infradead.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mbligh@mbligh.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Oh just run a 32GB SMP system with sparsely freeable pages and lots of > > allocs and frees and you will see it too. F.e try Linus tree and mlock > > a large portion of the memory and then see the fun starting. See also > > Rik's list of pathological cases on this. > > Ah, so your problem is lots of unreclaimable pages. There are heaps > of things we can try to reduce the rate at which we scan those. Well this is one possible sympton of the basic issue of having too many page structs. I wonder how long we can patch things up. -- 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