> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:20:43 +0100
> >
mel@skynet.ie (Mel Gorman) wrote:
> >
> >>> create-the-zone_movable-zone.patch
> >>> allow-huge-page-allocations-to-use-gfp_high_movable.patch
> >>> handle-kernelcore=-generic.patch
> >>>
> >>> Mel's moveable-zone work. In a similar situation. We need to stop whatever
> >>> we're doing and get down and work out what we're going to do with all this
> >>> stuff.
> >>>
> >> Whatever about grouping pages by mobility, I would like to see these go
> >> through. They have a real application for hugetlb pool resizing where the
> >> administrator knows the range of hugepages that will be required but doesn't
> >> want to waste memory when the required number of hugepages is small. I've
> >> cc'd Kenneth Chen as I believe he has run into this problem recently where
> >> I believe partitioning memory would have helped. He'll either confirm or deny.
> >
> > Still no decision here, really.
> >
> > Should we at least go for
> >
> > add-__gfp_movable-for-callers-to-flag-allocations-from-high-memory-that-may-be-migrated.patch
> > create-the-zone_movable-zone.patch
> > allow-huge-page-allocations-to-use-gfp_high_movable.patch
> > handle-kernelcore=-generic.patch
> >
> > in 2.6.23?
>
> These patches are pretty simple and self-contained utilising the
> existing zone infrastructure. They provide a significant degree of
> placement control when configured, which gives a lot of the benefits of
> grouping-pages-by-mobility. Merging these would seem like a low-risk
> option.
>
> Having a degree of placement control as delivered by ZONE_MOVABLE
> greatly increases the effectiveness of lumpy reclaim at higher orders.
> These patches plus lumpy would (IMO) provide a good base for further
> development. In particular I would envisage better usability for
> hugepage users in terms of simpler configuration.
