From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim during high-order allocations
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:46:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101117154641.51fd7ce5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1290010969-26721-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie>
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:22:41 +0000
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
> Huge page allocations are not expected to be cheap but lumpy reclaim
> is still very disruptive.
Huge pages are boring. Can we expect any benefit for the
stupid-nic-driver-which-does-order-4-GFP_ATOMIC-allocations problem?
>
> ...
>
> I haven't pushed hard on the concept of lumpy compaction yet and right
> now I don't intend to during this cycle. The initial prototypes did not
> behave as well as expected and this series improves the current situation
> a lot without introducing new algorithms. Hence, I'd like this series to
> be considered for merging.
Translation: "Andrew, wait for the next version"? :)
> I'm hoping that this series also removes the
> necessity for the "delete lumpy reclaim" patch from the THP tree.
Now I'm sad. I read all that and was thinking "oh goody, we get to
delete something for once". But no :(
If you can get this stuff to work nicely, why can't we remove lumpy
reclaim?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim during high-order allocations
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:46:41 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101117154641.51fd7ce5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1290010969-26721-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie>
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:22:41 +0000
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
> Huge page allocations are not expected to be cheap but lumpy reclaim
> is still very disruptive.
Huge pages are boring. Can we expect any benefit for the
stupid-nic-driver-which-does-order-4-GFP_ATOMIC-allocations problem?
>
> ...
>
> I haven't pushed hard on the concept of lumpy compaction yet and right
> now I don't intend to during this cycle. The initial prototypes did not
> behave as well as expected and this series improves the current situation
> a lot without introducing new algorithms. Hence, I'd like this series to
> be considered for merging.
Translation: "Andrew, wait for the next version"? :)
> I'm hoping that this series also removes the
> necessity for the "delete lumpy reclaim" patch from the THP tree.
Now I'm sad. I read all that and was thinking "oh goody, we get to
delete something for once". But no :(
If you can get this stuff to work nicely, why can't we remove lumpy
reclaim?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-17 23:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-17 16:22 [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim during high-order allocations Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 1/8] mm: compaction: Add trace events for memory compaction activity Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 2/8] mm: vmscan: Convert lumpy_mode into a bitmask Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 3/8] mm: vmscan: Reclaim order-0 and use compaction instead of lumpy reclaim Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 18:09 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-18 18:09 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-18 18:30 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 18:30 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 4/8] mm: migration: Allow migration to operate asynchronously and avoid synchronous compaction in the faster path Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 18:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-18 18:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-18 18:34 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 18:34 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 19:00 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-18 19:00 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 5/8] mm: migration: Cleanup migrate_pages API by matching types for offlining and sync Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 6/8] mm: compaction: Perform a faster scan in try_to_compact_pages() Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 18:34 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-18 18:34 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-18 18:50 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 18:50 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 19:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-18 19:08 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-19 11:16 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-19 11:16 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 7/8] mm: compaction: Use the LRU to get a hint on where compaction should start Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 9:10 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-11-18 9:10 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-11-18 9:28 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 9:28 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 18:46 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-18 18:46 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-19 11:08 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-19 11:08 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` [PATCH 8/8] mm: vmscan: Rename lumpy_mode to reclaim_mode Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 16:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-17 23:46 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-11-17 23:46 ` [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim during high-order allocations Andrew Morton
2010-11-18 2:03 ` Rik van Riel
2010-11-18 2:03 ` Rik van Riel
2010-11-18 8:12 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 8:12 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 8:26 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-11-18 8:26 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-11-18 8:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-11-18 8:38 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-11-18 9:20 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 9:20 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 19:49 ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-18 19:49 ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-19 10:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-19 10:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-19 12:43 ` Theodore Tso
2010-11-19 12:43 ` Theodore Tso
2010-11-19 14:05 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-19 14:05 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-19 15:45 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-19 15:45 ` Ted Ts'o
2010-11-18 8:44 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-18 8:44 ` Mel Gorman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101117154641.51fd7ce5.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.