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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4CE4897F.4020107@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:03:43 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.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 11/17/2010 06:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:22:41 +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?

I seem to remember there being some resistance against
removing lumpy reclaim, but I do not remember from
where or why.

IMHO some code deletion would be nice :)

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/