Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161070AbXAZRpz (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:45:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161087AbXAZRpy (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:45:54 -0500 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:33622 "EHLO omx1.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161070AbXAZRpx (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:45:53 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:45:47 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter To: Mel Gorman cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Allow huge page allocations to use GFP_HIGH_MOVABLE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20070125234458.28809.5412.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> <20070125234558.28809.21103.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 958 Lines: 19 On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, Mel Gorman wrote: > It's come up a few times and the converation is always fairly similar although > the thread http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/44 has interesting information on > the topic. There has been no serious discussion on whether anti-fragmentation > would help it or not. I think it would if atomic allocations were clustered > together because then jumbo frame allocations would cluster together in the > same MAX_ORDER blocks and tend to keep other allocations away. They are clustered in both schemes together with other non movable allocs right? The problem is to defrag while atomic? How is the zone based concept different in that area from the max order block based one? - 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/