Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757065AbZCPPyA (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:54:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754364AbZCPPxt (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:53:49 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54754 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753343AbZCPPxs (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:53:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:53:42 +0100 From: Nick Piggin To: Mel Gorman Cc: Linux Memory Management List , Pekka Enberg , Rik van Riel , KOSAKI Motohiro , Christoph Lameter , Johannes Weiner , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Lin Ming , Zhang Yanmin , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/35] Cleanup and optimise the page allocator V3 Message-ID: <20090316155342.GH30802@wotan.suse.de> References: <1237196790-7268-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20090316104054.GA23046@wotan.suse.de> <20090316111906.GA6382@csn.ul.ie> <20090316113358.GA30802@wotan.suse.de> <20090316120216.GB6382@csn.ul.ie> <20090316122505.GD30802@wotan.suse.de> <20090316133232.GA24293@csn.ul.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090316133232.GA24293@csn.ul.ie> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2080 Lines: 48 On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 01:32:32PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 01:25:05PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Well, buddy always uses the smallest available page first. Even with > > > deferred coalescing, it will merge up to order-5 at least. Lets say they > > > could have merged up to order-10 in ordinary circumstances, they are > > > still avoided for as long as possible. Granted, it might mean that an > > > order-5 is split that could have been merged but it's hard to tell how > > > much of a difference that makes. > > > > But the kinds of pages *you* are interested in are order-10, right? > > > > Yes, but my expectation is that multiple free order-5 pages can be > merged to make up an order-10. Yes, but lazy buddy will give out part of an order-10 free area to an order-5 request even when there are genuine order-5,6,7,8,9 free areas available. Now it could be assumed that not too much else in the kernel asks for anything over order-3, so you are unlikely to get these kinds of requests. But it's worse than that actually, because lazy buddy will also split half of an order-10 free area in order to satisfy an order-0 allocation in cases that there are no smaller orders than 5 available. So yes definitely I think there should be a very real impact on higher order coalescing no matter what you do. > If they can't, then lumpy reclaim kicks > in as normal. My expectation actually is that order-10 allocations often > end up using lumpy reclaim and the pages are not automatically > available. movable zone is less interesting, although it will make it harder to allocate these guys from movable zone. But the pages are movable so eventually they should be able to be reclaimed. unmovable zone fragmentation is more important point because it eventually can destroy the movable zone. -- 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/