Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161087AbVKDHhz (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2005 02:37:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161089AbVKDHhz (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2005 02:37:55 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:2519 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161087AbVKDHhy (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2005 02:37:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 08:37:50 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Paul Jackson Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, andy@thermo.lanl.gov, mbligh@mbligh.org, akpm@osdl.org, arjan@infradead.org, arjanv@infradead.org, haveblue@us.ibm.com, kravetz@us.ibm.com, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mel@csn.ul.ie, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19 Message-ID: <20051104073750.GA21321@elte.hu> References: <20051104010021.4180A184531@thermo.lanl.gov> <20051103221037.33ae0f53.pj@sgi.com> <20051104063820.GA19505@elte.hu> <20051103232649.12e58615.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051103232649.12e58615.pj@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1874 Lines: 41 * Paul Jackson wrote: > At first glance, this is the sticky point that jumps out at me. > > Andy wrote: > > My experience is that after some days or weeks of running have gone > > by, there is no possible way short of a reboot to get pages merged > > effectively back to any pristine state with the infrastructure that > > exists there. > > I take it, from what Andy writes, and from my other experience with > similar customers, that his workload is not "well-behaved" in the > sense you hoped for. > > After several diverse jobs are run, we cannot, so far as I know, merge > small pages back to big pages. ok, so the zone solution it has to be. I.e. the moment it's a separate special zone, you can boot with most of the RAM being in that zone, and you are all set. It can be used both for hugetlb allocations, and for other PAGE_SIZE allocations as well, in a highmem-fashion. These HPC setups are rarely kernel-intense. Thus the only dynamic sizing decision that has to be taken is to determine the amount of 'generic kernel RAM' that is needed in the worst-case. To give an example: say on a 256 GB box, set aside 8 GB for generic kernel needs, and have 248 GB in the hugemem zone. This leaves us with the following scenario: apps can use up to 97% of all RAM for hugemem, and they can use up to 100% of all RAM for PAGE_SIZE allocations. 3% of RAM can be used by generic kernel needs. Sounds pretty reasonable and straightforward from a system management point of view. No runtime resizing, but it wouldnt be needed, unless kernel activity needs more than 8GB of RAM. Ingo - 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/