From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F7B96201FE for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:15:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o6E2FVaP008465 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:15:31 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F49945DE52 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:15:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED9545DE4F for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:15:30 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27FD1DB8049 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:15:30 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C641DB8057 for ; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:15:30 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] vmscan: don't subtraction of unsined In-Reply-To: References: <20100713182918.EA67.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20100714110614.EA7B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 11:15:29 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton , LKML , linux-mm , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim , Johannes Weiner List-ID: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > Christoph, Can we hear your opinion about to add new branch in slab-free path? > > I think this is ok, because reclaim makes a lot of cache miss then branch > > mistaken is relatively minor penalty. thought? > > Its on the slow path so I would think that should be okay. But is this > really necessary? Working with the per zone slab reclaim counters is not > enough? We are adding counter after counter that have similar purposes and > the handling gets more complex. > > Maybe we can get rid of the code in the slabs instead by just relying on > the difference of the zone counters? Okey, I agree. I'm pending this work at once. and I'll (probably) resume it after Nick's work merged. 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