From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx171.postini.com [74.125.245.171]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CC7C6B0102 for ; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4F6793B0.50601@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:14:40 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: forbid lumpy-reclaim in shrink_active_list() References: <20120319091821.17716.54031.stgit@zurg> <4F676FA4.50905@redhat.com> <4F6773CC.2010705@openvz.org> <4F6774E8.2050202@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: Konstantin Khlebnikov , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Minchan Kim , Mel Gorman , Johannes Weiner , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki On 03/19/2012 04:05 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Rik van Riel wrote: >> It was done that way, because Mel explained to me that deactivating >> a whole chunk of active pages at once is a desired feature that makes >> it more likely that a whole contiguous chunk of pages will eventually >> reach the end of the inactive list. > > I'm rather sceptical about this: is there a test which demonstrates > a useful effect of that kind? I am somewhat sceptical too, but since lumpy reclaim is due to be removed anyway, I did not bother to investigate its behaviour in any detail :) -- 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