On Fri, 12 May 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> IMO high memory should not be balanced. Stock pre7-9 tried to balance high
> memory once it got below the treshold (causing very bad VM behavior and
> high kswapd usage) - this is incorrect because there is nothing special
> about the highmem zone, it's more like an 'extension' of the normal zone,
> from which specific caches can turn. (patch attached)
Hmm.. I think the patch is wrong. It's much easier to make
zone_balance_max[HIGHMEM] = 0;
and that will do the same thing, no?
> another problem is that even during a mild test the DMA zone gets emptied
> easily - but on a big RAM box kswapd has to work _alot_ to fill it up. In
> fact on an 8GB box it's completely futile to fill up the DMA zone. What
> worked for me is this zone-chainlist trick in the zone setup code:
Ok. This is a real problem. My inclination would be to say that your patch
is right, but only for large-memory configurations. Ie just say that if
the dang machine has more than half a gig of memory, we shouldn't touch
the 16 low megs at all unless explicitly asked for.
But the static thing ("never touch ZONE_DMA" when doing a normal
allocation) is obviously bogus on smaller-memory machines. So make it
> allocate 5% of total RAM or 16MB to the DMA zone (via fixing up zone sizes
> on bootup), whichever is smaller, in 2MB increments. Disadvantage of this
> method: eg. it wastes 2MB RAM on a 8MB box.
This may be part of the solution - make it more gradual than a complete
cut-off at some random point (eg half a gig).
After all, this is why we zoned memory in the first place, so I think it
makes sense to be much more dynamic with the zones.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 21:00:19 EST