Re: Avoiding external fragmentation with a placement policy Version 11
From: Joel Schopp <hidden>
Date: 2005-05-25 18:19:47
Also in:
lkml
Changelog since V10 o Important - All allocation types now use per-cpu caches like the standard allocator. Older versions may have trouble with large numbers of processors
Do you have a new set of benchmarks we could see? The ones you had for v10 were pretty useful.
o Removed all the additional buddy allocator statistic code
Is there a separate patch for the statistic code or is it no longer being maintained?
+/* + * Shared per-cpu lists would cause fragmentation over time + * The pcpu_list is to keep kernel and userrclm allocations + * apart while still allowing all allocation types to have + * per-cpu lists + */
Why are kernel nonreclaimable and kernel reclaimable joined here? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just ignorant and need some education.
+struct pcpu_list {
+ int count;
+ struct list_head list;
+} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
+
struct per_cpu_pages {
- int count; /* number of pages in the list */
+ struct pcpu_list pcpu_list[2]; /* 0: kernel 1: user */
int low; /* low watermark, refill needed */
int high; /* high watermark, emptying needed */
int batch; /* chunk size for buddy add/remove */
- struct list_head list; /* the list of pages */
};
Instead of defining 0 and 1 in a comment why not use a #define? > + pcp->pcpu_list[0].count = 0; > + pcp->pcpu_list[1].count = 0; The #define would make code like this look more readable. -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>