From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270295AbTHBUiT (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:38:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270319AbTHBUiT (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:38:19 -0400 Received: from web9702.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.129.138]:37383 "HELO web9702.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S270295AbTHBUiQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:38:16 -0400 Message-ID: <20030802203815.95358.qmail@web9702.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:38:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Alok Mooley Subject: Active Memory Defragmentation : Need? To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Why is Active Memory Defragmentation needed? (Reference : Paper by Daniel Phillips , titled "Patch:My research agenda for 2.7"). Is there any case or example of the Linux memory allocator (buddy allocator) failing due to memory fragmentation? If yes,what sorts of programs or applications cause this failure? Could anyone kindly supply me with statistical data & arguments to justify the need for Active Memory Defragmentation? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com