On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:17:26 -0800 (PST) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I suspect you'll have to live with that. I've yet to see a vaguely sane > > proposal to otherwise prevent unreclaimable, unmoveable kernel allocations > > from landing in a hot-unpluggable physical memory region. > > Mel's approach already mananges memory in a chunks of MAX_ORDER. It is > easy to just restrict the unmovable types of allocation to a section of > the zone. What happens when we need to run reclaim against just a section of a zone? Lumpy-reclaim could be used here; perhaps that's Mel's approach too? We'd need new infrastructure to perform the section-of-a-zone<->physical-memory-block mapping, and to track various states of the section-of-a-zone. This will be complex, and buggy. It will probably require the introduction of some sort of "sub-zone" structure. At which stage people would be justified in asking "why didn't you just use zones - that's what they're for?" > Then we should be doing some work to cut down the number of unmovable > allocations. That's rather pointless. A feature is either reliable or it is not. We'll never be able to make all kernel allocations reclaimable/moveable so we'll never be reliable with this approach. I don't see any alternative to the never-allocate-kernel-objects-in-removeable-memory approach. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
