Re: [PATCH 4/7] vmscan: narrowing synchrounous lumply reclaim condition

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

Hi

> My tree uses compaction in a fine way inside kswapd too and tons of
> systems are running without lumpy and floods of order 9 allocations
> with only compaction (in direct reclaim and kswapd) without the
> slighest problem. Furthermore I extended compaction for all
> allocations not just that PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER (maybe I already
> removed all PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER checks?). There's no good reason
> not to use compaction for every allocation including 1,2,3, and things
> works fine this way.

Interesting. I parsed this you have compaction improvement. If so,
can you please post them? Generically, 1) improve the feature 2) remove
unused one is safety order. In the other hand, reverse order seems to has
regression risk.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/