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 DEA2E6B004A for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:32:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id oAI8W2aY018200 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:32:03 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76EB33A62C2 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:32:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 537B91EF081 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:32:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344581DB8019 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:32:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D609A1DB8014 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:32:01 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:26:27 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaim during high-order allocations Message-Id: <20101118172627.cf25b83a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20101118081254.GB8135@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> 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: Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:12:54 +0000 Mel Gorman wrote: > > > I'm hoping that this series also removes the > > > necessity for the "delete lumpy reclaim" patch from the THP tree. > > > > Now I'm sad. I read all that and was thinking "oh goody, we get to > > delete something for once". But no :( > > > > If you can get this stuff to work nicely, why can't we remove lumpy > > reclaim? > > Ultimately we should be able to. Lumpy reclaim is still there for the > !CONFIG_COMPACTION case and to have an option if we find that compaction > behaves badly for some reason. > Hmm. CONFIG_COMPACTION depends on CONFIG_MMU. lumpy reclaim will be for NOMMU, finally ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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