From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1760243AbZFKIC2@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1760243AbZFKIC2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:02:28 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760146AbZFKIBy
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:01:54 -0400
Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:38697 "EHLO
	adelie.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1759744AbZFKIBx (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:01:53 -0400
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:01:37 +0100
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
       "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
       "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
       riel@redhat.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lumpy reclaim: clean up and write lumpy reclaim
Message-ID: <20090611080137.GD28011@shadowen.org>
References: <20090610142443.9370aff8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090610095140.GB25943@csn.ul.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090610095140.GB25943@csn.ul.ie>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:51:40AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 02:24:43PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > I think lumpy reclaim should be updated to meet to current split-lru.
> > This patch includes bugfix and cleanup. How do you think ?
> > 
> 
> I think it needs to be split up into its component parts. This patch is
> changing too much and it's very difficult to consider each change in
> isolation.

I can only echo Mels comments here.  It is very hard to review such a
large patch which mostly is fixing a very small change.  This code is
pretty fragile and would need significant testing, I don't know if Mel
is able to run the same tests we used when putting this together in the
first place.

By the looks of the rest of the thread Kame-san is going to break this
up so I'll wait for that.

Thanks!

-apw