From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161351AbWASTY4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:24:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161343AbWASTY4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:24:56 -0500 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:57018 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161351AbWASTYy (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:24:54 -0500 Message-ID: <43CFE77B.3090708@austin.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:24:43 -0600 From: Joel Schopp User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mel Gorman CC: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reducing fragmentation using zones References: <20060119190846.16909.14133.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie> In-Reply-To: <20060119190846.16909.14133.sendpatchset@skynet.csn.ul.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Benchmark comparison between -mm+NoOOM tree and with the new zones I know you had also previously posted a very simplified version of your real fragmentation avoidance patches. I was curious if you could repost those with the other benchmarks for a 3 way comparison. The simplified version got rid of a lot of the complexity people were complaining about and in my mind still seems like preferable direction. Zone based approaches are runtime inflexible and require boot time tuning by the sysadmin. There are lots of workloads that "reasonable" defaults for a zone based approach would cause the system to regress terribly. -Joel