From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B32A9000BD for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4E809ABB.2020807@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:31:07 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] limit direct reclaim for higher order allocations References: <20110926095507.34a2c48c@annuminas.surriel.com> <20110926150212.GB11313@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20110926150212.GB11313@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Johannes Weiner On 09/26/2011 11:02 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > I don't have a proper patch prepared but I think it is a mistake for > reclaim and compaction to be using different logic when deciding > if action should be taken. Compaction uses compaction_suitable() > and compaction_deferred() to decide whether it should compact or not > and reclaim/compaction should share the same logic. I don't have a > proper patch but the check would look something like; Mel and I just hashed out the details on IRC. I'm building a test kernel with the new logic now and will post an updated patch if everything works as expected. -- 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