On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Why would we run reclaim against a section of a zone? > > Strange question. Because all the pages are in use for something else.
We always run reclaim against the whole zone not against parts. Why would we start running reclaim against a portion of a zone? > > Mel aready has that for anti-frag. The sections are per MAX_ORDER area > > and the only states are movable unmovable and reclaimable. There is > > nothing more to it. No other state information should be added. Why would > > we need sub zones? For what purpose? > > You're proposing that for memory hot-unplug, we take a single zone and by > some means subdivide that into sections which correspond to physically > hot-unpluggable memory. That certainly does not map onto MAX_ORDER > sections. Mel's patches are already managing "sections" (if you want to call it that) of a zone in units of MAX_ORDER. If we memorize where the lowest unmovable MAX_ORDER block is then we have the necessary separation and can do memory unplug on the remainder of the zone. > > What feature are you talking about? > > Memory hot-unplug, of course. There are multiple issues that we discuss here. Please be clear. Categorical demands for perfection certainly wont help us. - 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/
