linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim during high-order allocations

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

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/