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 63E158D0017 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 00:43:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id oAE5hEq9015428 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:43:14 +0900 Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179D745DE4E for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:43:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E610445DE4D for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:43:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3EC7E08001 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:43:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913FD1DB8037 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:43:13 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm,vmscan: Reclaim order-0 and compact instead of lumpy reclaim when under light pressure In-Reply-To: <20101112093742.GA3537@csn.ul.ie> References: <1289502424-12661-4-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20101112093742.GA3537@csn.ul.ie> Message-Id: <20101114144155.E01F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 14:43:12 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 07:07:04PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > + if (COMPACTION_BUILD) > > + sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION; > > + else > > + sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM; > > > > Gack, I posted the slightly wrong version. This version prevents lumpy > reclaim ever being used. The figures I posted were for a patch where > this condition looked like > > if (COMPACTION_BUILD && priority > DEF_PRIORITY - 2) > sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION; > else > sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM; In all other place, heavy reclaim detection are used folliowing. if (priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) So, "priority >= DEF_PRIORITY - 2" is more symmetric, I think. but if you have strong reason, I don't oppse. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org