From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754595Ab0KRCEY (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:04:24 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63082 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754207Ab0KRCEX (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:04:23 -0500 Message-ID: <4CE4897F.4020107@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:03:43 -0500 From: Rik van Riel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100806 Fedora/3.1.2-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: Mel Gorman , Andrea Arcangeli , KOSAKI Motohiro , Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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