From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3D36B004A for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:50:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:49:28 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim during high-order allocations Message-Id: <20101118114928.ecb2d6b0.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20101118092044.GE8135@csn.ul.ie> References: <1290010969-26721-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20101117154641.51fd7ce5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20101118081254.GB8135@csn.ul.ie> <20101118172627.cf25b83a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20101118083828.GA24635@cmpxchg.org> <20101118092044.GE8135@csn.ul.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: Johannes Weiner , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andrea Arcangeli , KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:20:44 +0000 Mel Gorman wrote: > > It's because migration depends on MMU. But we should be able to make > > a NOMMU version of migration that just does page cache, which is all > > that is reclaimable on NOMMU anyway. > > > > Conceivably, but I see little problem leaving them with lumpy reclaim. I see a really big problem: we'll need to maintain lumpy reclaim for ever! We keep on piling in more and more stuff, we're getting less sure that the old stuff is still effective. It's becoming more and more important to move some of our attention over to simplification, and to rejustification of earlier decisions. -- 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