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 5A1718D0040 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:48:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491833EE0C0 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:48:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F6B645DE56 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:48:21 +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 01AC145DE59 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:48:21 +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 E6B05E08005 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:48:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.147]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09191DB8046 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:48:20 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely In-Reply-To: <20110323192150.9895afe3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20110324111200.1AF4.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110323192150.9895afe3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-Id: <20110324114842.CC70.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:48:19 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Minchan Kim , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes , Linus Torvalds , Rik van Riel , Oleg Nesterov , linux-mm , Andrey Vagin , Hugh Dickins , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Nick Piggin , Johannes Weiner > On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:11:46 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely > > zone.all_unreclaimable is there to prevent reclaim from wasting CPU > cycles scanning a zone which has no reclaimable pages. When originally > implemented it did this very well. > > That you guys keep breaking it, or don't feel like improving it is not a > reason to remove it! > > If the code is unneeded and the kernel now reliably solves this problem > by other means then this should have been fully explained in the > changelog, but it was not even mentioned. The changelog says, the logic was removed at 2008. three years ago. even though it's unintentionally. and I and minchan tried to resurrect the broken logic and resurrected a bug in the logic too. then, we are discussed it should die or alive. Which part is hard to understand for you? -- 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org