[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170117111316.6eakdx7ow6yodtf2@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:13:16 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] follow up nodereclaim for 32b fix
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:36:59AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> I have previously posted this as an RFC [1] but there didn't seem to be
> any objections other than some requests to reorganize the changes in
> a slightly different way so I am reposting the series and asking for
> inclusion.
>
> This is a follow up on top of [2]. The patch 1 cleans up the code a bit.
> I haven't seen any real issues or bug reports but conceptualy ignoring
> the maximum eligible zone in get_scan_count is wrong by definition. This
> is what patch 2 does. Patch 3 removes inactive_reclaimable_pages
> which was a kind of hack around for the problem which should have been
> addressed at get_scan_count.
>
> There is one more place which needs a special handling which is not
> a part of this series. too_many_isolated can get confused as well. I
> already have some preliminary work but it still needs some testing so I
> will post it separatelly.
>
> Michal Hocko (3):
> mm, vmscan: cleanup lru size claculations
> mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count
> Revert "mm: bail out in shrink_inactive_list()"
>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists