From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D8A5E6B005C for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:01:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:01:37 +0100 From: Andy Whitcroft Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lumpy reclaim: clean up and write lumpy reclaim Message-ID: <20090611080137.GD28011@shadowen.org> References: <20090610142443.9370aff8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090610095140.GB25943@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090610095140.GB25943@csn.ul.ie> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" , riel@redhat.com, minchan.kim@gmail.com List-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:51:40AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 02:24:43PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > I think lumpy reclaim should be updated to meet to current split-lru. > > This patch includes bugfix and cleanup. How do you think ? > > > > I think it needs to be split up into its component parts. This patch is > changing too much and it's very difficult to consider each change in > isolation. I can only echo Mels comments here. It is very hard to review such a large patch which mostly is fixing a very small change. This code is pretty fragile and would need significant testing, I don't know if Mel is able to run the same tests we used when putting this together in the first place. By the looks of the rest of the thread Kame-san is going to break this up so I'll wait for that. Thanks! -apw -- 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