[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111123134512.GN19415@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:45:13 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Nai Xia <nai.xia@...il.com>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andy Isaacson <adi@...apodia.org>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] mm: compaction: Introduce sync-light migration for
use by compaction
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 09:05:08PM +0800, Nai Xia wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > Where are you adding this check?
> >
> > If you mean in __unmap_and_move(), the check is unnecessary unless
> > another subsystem starts using sync-light compaction. With this series,
> > only direct compaction cares about MIGRATE_SYNC_LIGHT. If the page is
>
> But I am still a little bit confused that if MIGRATE_SYNC_LIGHT is only
> used by direct compaction and another mode can be used by it:
> MIGRATE_ASYNC also does not write dirty pages, then why not also
> do an (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) test before writing out pages,
Why would it be necessary?
Why would it be better than what is there now?
> like we already did for the page lock condition, but adding a new mode
> instead?
>
I'm afraid I am missing the significance of your question or how it
might apply to the problem at hand.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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