Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19

[Dave Hansen]

On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 07:25 -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > I really don't think we *want* to say we support higher order allocations
> > absolutely robustly, nor do we want people using them if possible. Because
> > we don't. Even with your patches.
> > 
> > Ingo also brought up this point at Ottawa.
> 
> Some of the driver issues can be fixed by scatter-gather DMA *if* the 
> h/w supports it. But what exactly do you propose to do about kernel
> stacks, etc? By the time you've fixed all the individual usages of it,
> frankly, it would be easier to provide a generic mechanism to fix the 
> problem ...

That generic mechanism is the kernel virtual remapping.  However, it has
a runtime performance cost, which is increased TLB footprint inside the
kernel, and a more costly implementation of __pa() and __va().

I'll admit, I'm biased toward partial solutions without runtime cost
before we start incurring constant cost across the entire kernel,
especially when those partial solutions have other potential in-kernel
users.

-- Dave


-
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/