Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261518AbVEYSTr (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2005 14:19:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261491AbVEYSTr (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2005 14:19:47 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]:54424 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262320AbVEYSFH (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2005 14:05:07 -0400 Message-ID: <4294BE45.3000502@austin.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 13:04:53 -0500 From: Joel Schopp Reply-To: jschopp@austin.ibm.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mel Gorman CC: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: Avoiding external fragmentation with a placement policy Version 11 References: <20050522200507.6ED7AECFC@skynet.csn.ul.ie> In-Reply-To: <20050522200507.6ED7AECFC@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 Content-Length: 1694 Lines: 50 > Changelog since V10 > > o Important - All allocation types now use per-cpu caches like the standard > allocator. Older versions may have trouble with large numbers of processors Do you have a new set of benchmarks we could see? The ones you had for v10 were pretty useful. > o Removed all the additional buddy allocator statistic code Is there a separate patch for the statistic code or is it no longer being maintained? > +/* > + * Shared per-cpu lists would cause fragmentation over time > + * The pcpu_list is to keep kernel and userrclm allocations > + * apart while still allowing all allocation types to have > + * per-cpu lists > + */ Why are kernel nonreclaimable and kernel reclaimable joined here? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just ignorant and need some education. > +struct pcpu_list { > + int count; > + struct list_head list; > +} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; > + > struct per_cpu_pages { > - int count; /* number of pages in the list */ > + struct pcpu_list pcpu_list[2]; /* 0: kernel 1: user */ > int low; /* low watermark, refill needed */ > int high; /* high watermark, emptying needed */ > int batch; /* chunk size for buddy add/remove */ > - struct list_head list; /* the list of pages */ > }; > Instead of defining 0 and 1 in a comment why not use a #define? > + pcp->pcpu_list[0].count = 0; > + pcp->pcpu_list[1].count = 0; The #define would make code like this look more readable. - 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/