From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx118.postini.com [74.125.245.118]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5EDB16B007E for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:10:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4F8325FB.80409@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:10:03 -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> 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 04/06/2012 04:31 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:06:21 +0100 >> Mel Gorman wrote: >> >>> (cc'ing active people in the thread "[patch 68/92] mm: forbid lumpy-reclaim >>> in shrink_active_list()") >>> >>> In the interest of keeping my fingers from the flames at LSF/MM, I'm >>> releasing an RFC for lumpy reclaim removal. >> >> I grabbed them, thanks. > > I do have a concern with this: I was expecting lumpy reclaim to be > replaced by compaction, and indeed it is when CONFIG_COMPACTION=y. > But when CONFIG_COMPACTION is not set, we're back to 2.6.22 in > relying upon blind chance to provide order>0 pages. Is this an issue for any architecture? I could see NOMMU being unable to use compaction, but chances are lumpy reclaim would be sufficient for that configuration, anyway... -- 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