Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Removal of lumpy reclaim

[Hugh Dickins]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 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<mgorman@xxxxxxx>  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?

Dunno about any architecture as a whole; but I'd expect users of SLOB
or TINY config options to want to still use lumpy rather than the more
efficient but weightier COMPACTION+MIGRATION.

Though "size migrate.o compaction.o" on my 32-bit config does not
reach 8kB, so maybe it's not a big deal after all.

> 
> I could see NOMMU being unable to use compaction, but

Yes, COMPACTION depends on MMU.

> chances are lumpy reclaim would be sufficient for that
> configuration, anyway...

That's an argument for your patch in 3.4-rc, which uses lumpy only
when !COMPACTION_BUILD.  But here we're worrying about Mel's patch,
which removes the lumpy code completely.

Hugh
--
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/