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:	Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:43:02 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, 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 Nov 19, 2010, at 5:48 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:

> At least as long as !CONFIG_COMPACTION exists. That will be a while because
> bear in mind CONFIG_COMPACTION is disabled by default (although I believe
> some distros are enabling it at least). Maybe we should choose to deprecate
> it in 2.6.40 and delete it at the infamous time of 2.6.42? That would give
> ample time to iron out any issues that crop up with reclaim/compaction
> (what this series has turned into).

How about making the default before 2.6.40, as an initial step?

-Ted
--
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/