[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0911131346560.22447@wbuna.brgvxre.pu>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:47:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@...ck.org\\\"" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@...net.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Reduce GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures, candidate
fix V3
Hi Mel,
Yesterday Mel Gorman wrote:
> Sorry for the long delay in posting another version. Testing is extremely
> time-consuming and I wasn't getting to work on this as much as I'd have liked.
>
> Changelog since V2
> o Dropped the kswapd-quickly-notice-high-order patch. In more detailed
> testing, it made latencies even worse as kswapd slept more on high-order
> congestion causing order-0 direct reclaims.
> o Added changes to how congestion_wait() works
> o Added a number of new patches altering the behaviour of reclaim
so is there anything promissing for the order 5 allocation problems
in this set?
cheers
tobi
--
Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland
http://it.oetiker.ch tobi@...iker.ch ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900
--
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