Thread (4 messages) 4 messages, 4 authors, 2000-10-31

Re: kmalloc() allocation.

From: Rik van Riel <hidden>
Date: 2000-10-31 13:36:37
Also in: lkml

On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Ingo Oeser wrote:
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 02:40:16PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
quoted
If you write the defragmentation code for the VM, I'll
be happy to bump up the limit a bit ...
Should become easier once we start doing physical page scannings.

We could record physical continous freeable areas on the fly
then. If someone asks for them later, we recheck whether they
still exists and free (inactive_clean) or remap (active or
inactive_dirty) the whole area, whether they are used or not. 

This could still be improved by using up smallest fit areas
first for kmalloc() based on these areas.
Rik: What do you think about this (physical cont. area cache) for 2.5?
http://www.surriel.com/zone-alloc.html

cheers,

Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
       -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

http://www.conectiva.com/		http://www.surriel.com/

--
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.eu.org/Linux-MM/
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help