[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120130102642.GA25268@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:26:42 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 -mm 1/3] mm: reclaim at order 0 when compaction is
enabled
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:35:02AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 04:13 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
>
> >>@@ -1195,7 +1195,7 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> >> BUG();
> >> }
> >>
> >>- if (!order)
> >>+ if (!sc->order || !(sc->reclaim_mode& RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM))
> >> continue;
> >>
> >Just a tiny advice 8-)
> >
> >mind to move checking lumpy reclaim out of the loop,
> >something like
>
> Hehe, I made the change the way it is on request
> of Mel Gorman :)
>
Yes. I recognise that checking inside the loop like this results
in a tiny hit but it is hardly critical. By putting the check here,
it is absolutely clear that this is now a lumpy-reclaim only thing
where it used to be used by both lumpy reclaim and reclaim/compaction.
It'll make deleting lumpy reclaim a little bit easier in the future.
--
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