From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262791AbUCRRRH (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:17:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262792AbUCRRRH (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:17:07 -0500 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.105]:36744 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262791AbUCRRRE (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:17:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Active defragmentation : A replacement for bigphysarea? From: Dave Hansen To: Alok Mooley Cc: linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <20040317173607.31415.qmail@web9706.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040317173607.31415.qmail@web9706.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1079630221.5789.1906.camel@nighthawk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:17:01 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 09:36, Alok Mooley wrote: > I have implemented a memory defragmentation utility > for linux kernel 2.6 based on the paper by Mr. Daniel > Phillips. > Can this utility be used instead of the bigphysarea > patch, for requirements less than MAX_ORDER of > allocation ? > Can the people using the bigphysarea patch kindly > provide me with their respective memory requirements. Have you incorporated any of the suggestions from the last time that you posted the patch? Could you post the current version? -- dave