From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 52AC3900001 for ; Fri, 13 May 2011 07:01:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 13:01:25 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [rfc patch 5/6] memcg: remove global LRU list Message-ID: <20110513110124.GF25304@tiehlicka.suse.cz> References: <1305212038-15445-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <1305212038-15445-6-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20110513095348.GE25304@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <20110513103608.GP16531@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110513103608.GP16531@cmpxchg.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Daisuke Nishimura , Balbir Singh , Ying Han , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim , KOSAKI Motohiro , Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri 13-05-11 12:36:08, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 11:53:48AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 12-05-11 16:53:57, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > Since the VM now has means to do global reclaim from the per-memcg lru > > > lists, the global LRU list is no longer required. > > > > Shouldn't this one be at the end of the series? > > I don't really have an opinion. Why do you think it should? It is the last step in my eyes and maybe we want to keep both global LRU as a fallback for some time just to get an impression (with some tracepoints)how well does the per-cgroup reclaim goes. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- 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