Re: [PATCH] Add __GFP_MOVABLE for callers to flag allocations thatmay be migrated

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:17:26 -0800 (PST)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/