[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101118172627.cf25b83a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:26:27 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim
during high-order allocations
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:12:54 +0000
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> > > I'm hoping that this series also removes the
> > > necessity for the "delete lumpy reclaim" patch from the THP tree.
> >
> > Now I'm sad. I read all that and was thinking "oh goody, we get to
> > delete something for once". But no :(
> >
> > If you can get this stuff to work nicely, why can't we remove lumpy
> > reclaim?
>
> Ultimately we should be able to. Lumpy reclaim is still there for the
> !CONFIG_COMPACTION case and to have an option if we find that compaction
> behaves badly for some reason.
>
Hmm. CONFIG_COMPACTION depends on CONFIG_MMU. lumpy reclaim will be for NOMMU,
finally ?
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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