Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757027AbXHBPTT (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:19:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755265AbXHBPTK (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:19:10 -0400 Received: from atlrel8.hp.com ([156.153.255.206]:50935 "EHLO atlrel8.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755437AbXHBPTJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:19:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.23-rc1-mm1 - fix missing numa_zonelist_order sysctl From: Lee Schermerhorn To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel , linux-mm , Christoph Lameter In-Reply-To: <20070802094445.6495e25d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <1185994972.5059.91.camel@localhost> <20070802094445.6495e25d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: HP/OSLO Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:07:38 -0400 Message-Id: <1186067258.5040.33.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1688 Lines: 37 On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 09:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:02:51 -0400 > Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > [But, maybe reordering the zonelists is not such a good idea > > when ZONE_MOVABLE is populated?] > > > > It's case-by-case I think. In zone order with ZONE_MOVABLE case, > user's page cache will not use ZONE_NORMAL until ZONE_MOVABLE in all node > is exhausted. This is an expected behavior, I think. > > I think the real problem is the scheme for "How to set zone movable size to > appropriate value for the system". This needs more study and documentation. > (but maybe depends on system configuration to some extent.) Yes. Having thought about it a bit more, maybe zone order IS what we want if we desire the remainder of the zone from which is was taken [ZONE_MOVABLE-1] to be reserved for non-movable kernel use as long as possible--similar to the dma zone. I had made the non-movable zone very large for testing, so that I could create a segment that used all of the movable zones on all the nodes and then dip into the non-movable/normal zone. If I used a more reasonable [much smaller] amount of kernelcore, the interleave would have worked as "expected". Of course, I don't have any idea of what is a "reasonable amount". Guess I could look at non-movable zone memory usage in a system at typical or peak load to get an idea. Anyone have any data in this regard? Lee - 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/