[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101118084455.GD8135@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:44:55 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
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, Nov 18, 2010 at 05:26:27PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> 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 ?
>
Also true. As it is, lumpy reclaim is still there but it's never called
if CONFIG_COMPACTION is set so it's already side-lined.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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