|| ||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>|
|| ||Dave Hansen <haveblue-AT-us.ibm.com>|
|| ||Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19|
|| ||Tue, 1 Nov 2005 15:29:59 +0100|
|| ||Mel Gorman <mel-AT-csn.ul.ie>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin-AT-yahoo.com.au>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh-AT-mbligh.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>, kravetz-AT-us.ibm.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
* Dave Hansen <email@example.com> wrote:
> > can you always, under any circumstance hot unplug RAM with these patches
> > applied? If not, do you have any expectation to reach 100%?
> With these patches, no. There are currently some very nice,
> pathological workloads which will still cause fragmentation. But, in
> the interest of incremental feature introduction, I think they're a
> fine first step. We can effectively reach toward a more comprehensive
> solution on top of these patches.
> Reaching truly 100% will require some other changes such as being able
> to virtually remap things like kernel text.
then we need to see that 100% solution first - at least in terms of
conceptual steps. Not being able to hot-unplug RAM in a 100% way wont
satisfy customers. Whatever solution we choose, it must work 100%. Just
to give a comparison: would you be content with your computer failing to
start up apps 1 time out of 100, saying that 99% is good enough? Or
would you call it what it is: buggy and unreliable?
to stress it: hot unplug is a _feature_ that must work 100%, _not_ some
optimization where 99% is good enough. This is a feature that people
will be depending on if we promise it, and 1% failure rate is not
acceptable. Your 'pathological workload' might be customer X's daily
workload. Unless there is a clear definition of what is possible and
what is not (which definition can be relied upon by users), having a 99%
solution is much worse than the current 0% solution!
worse than that, this is a known _hard_ problem to solve in a 100% way,
and saying 'this patch is a good first step' just lures us (and
customers) into believing that we are only 1% away from the desired 100%
solution, while nothing could be further from the truth. They will
demand the remaining 1%, but can we offer it? Unless you can provide a
clear, accepted-upon path towards the 100% solution, we have nothing
I have no problems with using higher-order pages for performance
purposes [*], as long as 'failed' allocation (and freeing) actions are
user-invisible. But the moment you make it user-visible, it _must_ work
in a deterministic way!
[*] in which case any slowdown in the page allocator must be offset by
to post comments)