Re: [00/17] [RFC] Virtual Compound Page Support

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...>
Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@...>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...>, Mel Gorman <mel@...>, David Chinner <dgc@...>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...>, <linux-fsdevel@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 1:33 pm

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:


Correct.


We would first do the vmalloc conversion to GFP_VFALLBACK which would 
reduce the vmalloc requirements of drivers and core significantly. The 
patchset should actually reduce the vmalloc space requirements 
significantly. They are only needed in situations where the page allocator 
cannot provide a contiguous mapping and that gets rarer the better Mel's 
antifrag code works.
 

If its rarely used then its not that big of a deal. The better the anti 
fragmentation measures the less vmalloc use.
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[00/17] [RFC] Virtual Compound Page Support, Christoph Lameter, (Tue Sep 18, 11:36 pm)
Re: [00/17] [RFC] Virtual Compound Page Support, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 19, 4:24 am)
Re: [00/17] [RFC] Virtual Compound Page Support, Christoph Lameter, (Wed Sep 19, 1:36 pm)
Re: [00/17] [RFC] Virtual Compound Page Support, Anton Altaparmakov, (Wed Sep 19, 3:34 am)
Re: [00/17] [RFC] Virtual Compound Page Support, Eric Dumazet, (Wed Sep 19, 4:34 am)
Re: [00/17] [RFC] Virtual Compound Page Support, Christoph Lameter, (Wed Sep 19, 1:33 pm)