In the UML case, I want the system to automatically be able to hand back any sufficiently large chunks of memory it currently isn't using.
What does this have to do with specifying hard limits of anything? What's to specify? Workloads vary. Deal with it.
If there are zone rebalancing problems[*], then it would be great to
have more users of zones because then they will be more likely to get
fixed.
Ok, so you want to artificially turn this into a zone balancing issue in hopes of giving that area of the code more testing when, if zones weren't involved, there would be no need for balancing at all?
How does that make sense?
[*] and there are, sadly enough - see the recent patches I posted to
lkml for example.
I was under the impression that zone balancing is, conceptually speaking, a difficult problem.
But I'm fairly confident that once the particularly silly ones have been fixed,
Great, you're advocating migrating the fragmentation patches to an area of code that has known problems you yourself describe as "particularly silly". A ringing endorsement, that.
The fact that the migrated version wouldn't even address fragmentation avoidance at all (the topic of this thread!) is apparently a side issue.
zone balancing will no longer be a derogatory term as has been thrown around (maybe rightly) in this
thread!
If I'm not mistaken, you introduced zones into this thread, you are the primary (possibly only) proponent of them.
Yes, zones are a way of categorizing memory.
They're not a way of defragmenting it.