From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BB7058D0017 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 01:02:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id oAE6257V010702 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:02:05 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D910045DE7D for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:02:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5DE545DE70 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:02:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A581DB8037 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:02:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E231DB803F for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:02:04 +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: <20101114150039.E028.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:02:03 +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; Can you please tell us your opinition which is better 1) automatically turn lumby on by priority (this approach) 2) introduce GFP_LUMPY (andrea proposed). I'm not sure which is better, then I'd like to hear both pros/cons concern. 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org