From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Removal of lumpy reclaim
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:40:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F83737B.7040308@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1204091205130.1536@eggly.anvils>
On 04/09/2012 03:18 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> I could see NOMMU being unable to use compaction, but
>
> Yes, COMPACTION depends on MMU.
>
>> chances are lumpy reclaim would be sufficient for that
>> configuration, anyway...
>
> That's an argument for your patch in 3.4-rc, which uses lumpy only
> when !COMPACTION_BUILD. But here we're worrying about Mel's patch,
> which removes the lumpy code completely.
Sorry, that was a typo in my mail.
I wanted to say that I expect lumpy reclaim to NOT be
sufficient for NOMMU anyway, because it cannot reclaim
lumps of memory large enough to fit a new process.
--
All rights reversed
--
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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Removal of lumpy reclaim
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:40:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F83737B.7040308@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1204091205130.1536@eggly.anvils>
On 04/09/2012 03:18 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> I could see NOMMU being unable to use compaction, but
>
> Yes, COMPACTION depends on MMU.
>
>> chances are lumpy reclaim would be sufficient for that
>> configuration, anyway...
>
> That's an argument for your patch in 3.4-rc, which uses lumpy only
> when !COMPACTION_BUILD. But here we're worrying about Mel's patch,
> which removes the lumpy code completely.
Sorry, that was a typo in my mail.
I wanted to say that I expect lumpy reclaim to NOT be
sufficient for NOMMU anyway, because it cannot reclaim
lumps of memory large enough to fit a new process.
--
All rights reversed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-09 23:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-28 16:06 [RFC PATCH 0/2] Removal of lumpy reclaim Mel Gorman
2012-03-28 16:06 ` Mel Gorman
2012-03-28 16:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: vmscan: Remove " Mel Gorman
2012-03-28 16:06 ` Mel Gorman
2012-04-06 23:52 ` Ying Han
2012-04-06 23:52 ` Ying Han
2012-04-10 8:24 ` Mel Gorman
2012-04-10 8:24 ` Mel Gorman
2012-04-10 9:29 ` Mel Gorman
2012-04-10 9:29 ` Mel Gorman
2012-04-10 17:25 ` Ying Han
2012-04-10 17:25 ` Ying Han
2012-03-28 16:06 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: vmscan: Remove reclaim_mode_t Mel Gorman
2012-03-28 16:06 ` Mel Gorman
2012-04-06 19:34 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] Removal of lumpy reclaim Andrew Morton
2012-04-06 19:34 ` Andrew Morton
2012-04-06 20:31 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-04-06 20:31 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-04-07 3:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-07 3:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-09 18:10 ` Rik van Riel
2012-04-09 18:10 ` Rik van Riel
2012-04-09 19:18 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-04-09 19:18 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-04-09 23:40 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2012-04-09 23:40 ` Rik van Riel
2012-04-10 8:32 ` Mel Gorman
2012-04-10 8:32 ` 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=4F83737B.7040308@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=khlebnikov@openvz.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
/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.