Re: [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaimduring high-order allocations

[Mel Gorman]

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 05:26:27PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:12:54 +0000
> Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> 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?
> > 
> > Ultimately we should be able to. Lumpy reclaim is still there for the
> > !CONFIG_COMPACTION case and to have an option if we find that compaction
> > behaves badly for some reason.
> > 
> 
> Hmm. CONFIG_COMPACTION depends on CONFIG_MMU. lumpy reclaim will be for NOMMU,
> finally ?
> 

Also true. As it is, lumpy reclaim is still there but it's never called
if CONFIG_COMPACTION is set so it's already side-lined.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/