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 A66D08D0004 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 04:01:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o9S8122q021023 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:01:03 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F7645DE4F for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:01:02 +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 4481A45DE52 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:01:02 +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 228221DB804D for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:01:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93761E38001 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:00:58 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] vmscan: narrowing synchrounous lumply reclaim condition In-Reply-To: <20101027180333.GE29304@random.random> References: <20101027171643.GA4896@csn.ul.ie> <20101027180333.GE29304@random.random> Message-Id: <20101028162522.B0B5.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:00:57 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Mel Gorman , LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Wu Fengguang , Minchan Kim , Rik van Riel List-ID: Hi > My tree uses compaction in a fine way inside kswapd too and tons of > systems are running without lumpy and floods of order 9 allocations > with only compaction (in direct reclaim and kswapd) without the > slighest problem. Furthermore I extended compaction for all > allocations not just that PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER (maybe I already > removed all PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER checks?). There's no good reason > not to use compaction for every allocation including 1,2,3, and things > works fine this way. Interesting. I parsed this you have compaction improvement. If so, can you please post them? Generically, 1) improve the feature 2) remove unused one is safety order. In the other hand, reverse order seems to has regression risk. -- 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