Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266860AbUFXSNi (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:13:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266863AbUFXSNi (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:13:38 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([207.189.100.168]:31115 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266860AbUFXSNb (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:13:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:13:11 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Nick Piggin , Takashi Iwai , Andi Kleen , ak@muc.de, tripperda@nvidia.com, discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: 32-bit dma allocations on 64-bit platforms Message-ID: <20040624181311.GJ21066@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Andrea Arcangeli , Nick Piggin , Takashi Iwai , Andi Kleen , ak@muc.de, tripperda@nvidia.com, discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20040624164258.1a1beea3.ak@suse.de> <20040624152946.GK30687@dualathlon.random> <40DAF7DF.9020501@yahoo.com.au> <20040624165200.GM30687@dualathlon.random> <20040624165629.GG21066@holomorphy.com> <20040624173236.GP30687@dualathlon.random> <20040624173827.GH21066@holomorphy.com> <20040624180256.GR30687@dualathlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040624180256.GR30687@dualathlon.random> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1383 Lines: 26 On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:02:56PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > I'm talking to Andrew about this very issue since december 2002, so I > mostly giveup except for a few reminders like this one today. > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20021206145718.GL1567%40dualathlon.random&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dlinus%2Bgoogle%2Bfix%2Bmin%2Bwatermarks%26hl%3D > I'm confident as people starts to run into the zone inbalance with 2.6 > and as google upgrades to 2.6, eventually lowmem_zone_reserve_ratio will > be forward ported to 2.4.26 to 2.6. I'm not the guy with >4G of ram > anyways, so it won't be myself having troubles with this ;). > Furthermore if you have some swap, the VM can normally relocate the > stuff (you've to be quite unlucky to be filled by pure ptes in the > lowmem zone but it can happen too, but certainly not in my or Andrew's > boxes where we have not more than 2M of ptes anytime allocated). This sounds like the more precise fix would be enforcing a stricter fallback criterion for pinned allocations. Pinned userspace would need zone migration if it's done selectively like this. Thanks. -- wli - 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/