From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CFC06B020E for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:33:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o3G5XejO029967 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:33:41 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D9045DE55 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:33:40 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A7A145DE4F for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:33:40 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631B91DB803F for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:33:40 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18CB21DB8040 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:33:37 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: page_check_references() check low order lumpy reclaim properly In-Reply-To: References: <20100416115437.27AD.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20100416143134.27B9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:33:36 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Minchan Kim Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Wu Fengguang , Andreas Mohr , Jens Axboe , Linux Memory Management List , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Rik van Riel , Lee Schermerhorn List-ID: > > + A A A /* > > + A A A A * If we need a large contiguous chunk of memory, or have > > + A A A A * trouble getting a small set of contiguous pages, we > > + A A A A * will reclaim both active and inactive pages. > > + A A A A */ > > + A A A if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) > > + A A A A A A A sc->lumpy_reclaim = 1; > > + A A A else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) > > + A A A A A A A sc->lumpy_reclaim = 1; > > + A A A else > > + A A A A A A A sc->lumpy_reclaim = 0; > > How about making new function for readability instead of nesting else? > int is_lumpy_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc) > { > .... > } > > If you merge patch reduced stack usage of reclaim path, I think it's > enough alone scan_control argument. > It's just nitpick. :) > If you don't mind, ignore, please. Good opinion. I don't hope introduce the dependency of "reduced stack usage" series. but I agree that I'll push your proposal later and separately. -- 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