| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:10:03 -0400 From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Removal of lumpy reclaim On 04/06/2012 04:31 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:06:21 +0100 >> Mel Gorman<mgorman@...e.de> wrote: >> >>> (cc'ing active people in the thread "[patch 68/92] mm: forbid lumpy-reclaim >>> in shrink_active_list()") >>> >>> In the interest of keeping my fingers from the flames at LSF/MM, I'm >>> releasing an RFC for lumpy reclaim removal. >> >> I grabbed them, thanks. > > I do have a concern with this: I was expecting lumpy reclaim to be > replaced by compaction, and indeed it is when CONFIG_COMPACTION=y. > But when CONFIG_COMPACTION is not set, we're back to 2.6.22 in > relying upon blind chance to provide order>0 pages. Is this an issue for any architecture? I could see NOMMU being unable to use compaction, but chances are lumpy reclaim would be sufficient for that configuration, anyway... -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists