From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E5D7B6B004D for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 00:30:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n4S4URlX002754 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 28 May 2009 13:30:27 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A06D45DE62 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 13:30:27 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2F045DE57 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 13:30:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C53E01DB8041 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 13:30:26 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF761DB803F for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 13:30:26 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] zone_reclaim is always 0 by default In-Reply-To: <20090527095006.GE29447@sgi.com> References: <20090527164549.68B4.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090527095006.GE29447@sgi.com> Message-Id: <20090528132800.F0F5.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 13:30:25 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Robin Holt Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Christoph Lameter , "Zhang, Yanmin" , Wu Fengguang List-ID: > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 05:06:18PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > your last patch is one of considerable thing. but it has one weakness. > > in general "ifdef x86" is wrong idea. almost minor architecture don't > > have sufficient tester. the difference against x86 often makes bug. > > Then, unnecessary difference is hated by much people. > > Let me start by saying I can barely understand this entire email. > I appreciate that english is a second language for you and you are > doing a service to the linux community with your contributions despite > the language barrier. I commend you for your efforts. I do ask that if > there was more information contained in your email than I am replying too, > please reword it so I may understand. > > IIRC, my last patch made it an arch header option to set zone_reclaim_mode > to any value it desired while leaving the default as 1. The only arch > that changed the default was x86 (both 32 and 64 bit). That seems the > least disruptive to existing users. > > > So, I think we have two selectable choice. > > > > 1. remove zone_reclaim default setting completely (this patch) > > 2. Only PowerPC and IA64 have default zone_reclaim_mode settings, > > other architecture always use zone_reclaim_mode=0. > > Looks like 2 is the inverse of my patch. That is fine as well. The only > reason I formed the patch with the default of 1 and override on x86 is > it was one less line of change and one less file. OK. I appreciate we reach good agreement. I'll try make patch (2) in this week end. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org