From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx115.postini.com [74.125.245.115]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B95CD6B0005 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:01:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:01:37 +0000 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] mm: vmscan: Flatten kswapd priority loop Message-ID: <20130319110137.GK2055@suse.de> References: <1363525456-10448-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1363525456-10448-4-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <5147D6A7.5060008@gmail.com> <20130319101428.GD2055@suse.de> <51483D63.4070904@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51483D63.4070904@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Simon Jeons Cc: Linux-MM , Jiri Slaby , Valdis Kletnieks , Rik van Riel , Zlatko Calusic , Johannes Weiner , dormando , Satoru Moriya , Michal Hocko , LKML On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 06:26:43PM +0800, Simon Jeons wrote: > >>>- if (sc.nr_reclaimed >= SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) > >>>- break; > >>>- } while (--sc.priority >= 0); > >>>+ if (order && sc.nr_reclaimed >= 2UL << order) > >>>+ order = sc.order = 0; > >>If order == 0 is meet, should we do defrag for it? > >> > >Compaction is unnecessary for order-0. > > > > I mean since order && sc.reclaimed >= 2UL << order, it is reclaimed > for high order allocation, if order == 0 is meet, should we do > defrag for it? > I don't get this question at all. We do not defrag via compaction for order-0 allocation requests because it makes no sense. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org