linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] limit direct reclaim for higher 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E809ABB.2020807@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:31:07 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] limit direct reclaim for higher order allocations

On 09/26/2011 11:02 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:

> I don't have a proper patch prepared but I think it is a mistake for
> reclaim and compaction to be using different logic when deciding
> if action should be taken. Compaction uses compaction_suitable()
> and compaction_deferred() to decide whether it should compact or not
> and reclaim/compaction should share the same logic. I don't have a
> proper patch but the check would look something like;

Mel and I just hashed out the details on IRC.

I'm building a test kernel with the new logic now and will
post an updated patch if everything works as expected.

-- 
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/