[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101114150039.E028.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:02:03 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm,vmscan: Reclaim order-0 and compact instead of lumpy reclaim when under light pressure
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 07:07:04PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > + if (COMPACTION_BUILD)
> > + sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION;
> > + else
> > + sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM;
> >
>
> Gack, I posted the slightly wrong version. This version prevents lumpy
> reclaim ever being used. The figures I posted were for a patch where
> this condition looked like
>
> if (COMPACTION_BUILD && priority > DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION;
> else
> sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM;
Can you please tell us your opinition which is better 1) automatically turn lumby on
by priority (this approach) 2) introduce GFP_LUMPY (andrea proposed). I'm not
sure which is better, then I'd like to hear both pros/cons concern.
Thanks.
--
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