Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752174Ab2K3D3l (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:29:41 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:55010 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751028Ab2K3D3k (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:29:40 -0500 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1C95FF53@ORSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <1353667445-7593-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <50B5CFAE.80103@huawei.com> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1C95EDCE@ORSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> <50B68467.5020008@zytor.com> <20121129110045.GX8218@suse.de> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1C95FF53@ORSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 0/5] Add movablecore_map boot option From: "H. Peter Anvin" Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:28:12 -0800 To: "Luck, Tony" , Mel Gorman CC: Jiang Liu , Tang Chen , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "rob@landley.net" , "isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com" , "laijs@cn.fujitsu.com" , "wency@cn.fujitsu.com" , "linfeng@cn.fujitsu.com" , "yinghai@kernel.org" , "kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" , "minchan.kim@gmail.com" , "rientjes@google.com" , "rusty@rustcorp.com.au" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Len Brown , "Wang, Frank" Message-ID: <5a01986b-e412-44df-b376-fce7f8937b93@email.android.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1312 Lines: 35 Disk I/O is still a big consumer of lowmem. "Luck, Tony" wrote: >> If any significant percentage of memory is in ZONE_MOVABLE then the >memory >> hotplug people will have to deal with all the lowmem/highmem problems >> that used to be faced by 32-bit x86 with PAE enabled. > >While these problems may still exist on large systems - I think it >becomes >harder to construct workloads that run into problems. In those bad old >days >a significant fraction of lowmem was consumed by the kernel ... so it >was >pretty easy to find meta-data intensive workloads that would push it >over >a cliff. Here we are talking about systems with say 128GB per node >divided >into 64GB moveable and 64GB non-moveable (and I'd regard this as a >rather >low-end machine). Unless the workload consists of zillions of tiny >processes >all mapping shared memory blocks, the percentage of memory allocated to >the kernel is going to be tiny compared with the old 4GB days. > >-Tony -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/