linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Abort reclaim/compaction if compaction can proceed

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:07:06 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>, aarcange@...hat.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Abort reclaim/compaction if compaction can proceed

On 10/07/2011 11:17 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> If compaction can proceed, shrink_zones() stops doing any work but
> the callers still shrink_slab(), raises the priority and potentially
> sleeps.  This patch aborts direct reclaim/compaction entirely if
> compaction can proceed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman<mgorman@...e.de>

This patch makes sense to me, but I have not tested it like
the first one.

Mel, have you tested this patch?  Did you see any changed
behaviour vs. just the first patch?

Having said that, I'm pretty sure the patch is ok :)

-- 
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/