From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx202.postini.com [74.125.245.202]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 08E246B004A for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 19:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4F83737B.7040308@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:40:43 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Removal of lumpy reclaim References: <1332950783-31662-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20120406123439.d2ba8920.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4F8325FB.80409@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Linux-MM , LKML , Konstantin Khlebnikov 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: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758190Ab2DIXk5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Apr 2012 19:40:57 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8877 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751764Ab2DIXk4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Apr 2012 19:40:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4F83737B.7040308@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:40:43 -0400 From: Rik van Riel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hugh Dickins CC: Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Linux-MM , LKML , Konstantin Khlebnikov Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Removal of lumpy reclaim References: <1332950783-31662-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20120406123439.d2ba8920.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4F8325FB.80409@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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