>I originally meant to send these three to you as well
>for inclusion.  Do you want me to repost all of the messages
>or can you pick them up from the mailing list?

I can get them all out of the linux-ia64 mailing list, no need
for explicit copies to me.

>I decided to not do the zero slab allocator because introducing
>node awareness seemed to be a very daunting task and others at
>SGI are already planning work in that area.  With the third patch
>in this set, the need for a node aware slab allocator becomes
>less important as quicklist size is shrunk based upon free
>memory in the system.

This looks like a plausible approach for now ... when the node-aware
slab allocator is up and running we can re-visit the question
of whether to keep the quicklists.

>                            This happens from either cpu idle or
>from tlb_finish_mmu(), which seems to be often enough.

But I'm a little worried about this.  There is no guarantee that
we will *ever* be idle (someone might pin a copy of SETI at a low
nice value to every cpu in the system to soak up all idle cycles).
Calls to tlb_finish_mmu() would be very dependent on what the
application is doing.  Can you take a bit more of a look at this
area ... try to think from the point of view of a malicious user
who would like to grind the system to a halt by tying up all the
memory in the quicklists ... convince me that they can't do much
damage.

-Tony
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to