[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F8325FB.80409@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:10:03 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Removal of lumpy reclaim
On 04/06/2012 04:31 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:06:21 +0100
>> Mel Gorman<mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
>>
>>> (cc'ing active people in the thread "[patch 68/92] mm: forbid lumpy-reclaim
>>> in shrink_active_list()")
>>>
>>> In the interest of keeping my fingers from the flames at LSF/MM, I'm
>>> releasing an RFC for lumpy reclaim removal.
>>
>> I grabbed them, thanks.
>
> I do have a concern with this: I was expecting lumpy reclaim to be
> replaced by compaction, and indeed it is when CONFIG_COMPACTION=y.
> But when CONFIG_COMPACTION is not set, we're back to 2.6.22 in
> relying upon blind chance to provide order>0 pages.
Is this an issue for any architecture?
I could see NOMMU being unable to use compaction, but
chances are lumpy reclaim would be sufficient for that
configuration, anyway...
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists