From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6183E6B004A for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:04:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4CE4897F.4020107@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:03:43 -0500 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim during high-order allocations References: <1290010969-26721-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20101117154641.51fd7ce5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20101117154641.51fd7ce5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: Mel Gorman , Andrea Arcangeli , KOSAKI Motohiro , Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/17/2010 06:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:22:41 +0000 > Mel Gorman wrote: >> 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? I seem to remember there being some resistance against removing lumpy reclaim, but I do not remember from where or why. IMHO some code deletion would be nice :) -- 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 policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org