[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: linux-mm
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] __alloc_pages_limit & order > 0
From: Rik van Riel <riel () conectiva ! com ! br>
Date: 2001-08-25 3:20:59
[Download RAW message or body]
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Roger Larsson wrote:
> To begin with if order > 0 then direct_reclaim will be false even if
> it is allowed to wait...
That's because direct_reclaim can only reclaim 1 page from
the page cache at the same time, while a higher-order alloc
needs _multiple_ pages.
Thus, by definition, a direct-reclaim won't satisfy a higher
order allocation.
> This version allows direct_reclaim with order > 0 !
The old code already did this, albeit in a very ugly way.
I'd like to see the old code cleaned up, but I'm not too happy
about the main loop being complicated because of these (very rare)
higher-order allocations.
IIRC somebody measured his system one day and 99.5% of the allocs
were 0-order GFP_USER or GFP_KERNEL, so I guess we really want to
keep the multi-order allocs from messing with the main allocation
loop.
Then again, please do clean up the multi-order allocation page
cleaning loop, the way I coded it originally is just plain ugly ;)
regards,
Rik -- after a few drinks, so apply a grain of salt ;)
--
IA64: a worthy successor to i860.
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic