From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx188.postini.com [74.125.245.188]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A58B6B0031 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 06:09:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:09:11 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] RFC: adding compaction to zone_reclaim_mode > 0 Message-ID: <20130606100911.GI1936@suse.de> References: <1370445037-24144-1-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1370445037-24144-1-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Rik van Riel , Hugh Dickins , Richard Davies , Shaohua Li , Rafael Aquini On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:10:30PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > The main change of behavior is the removal of compact_blockskip_flush > and the __reset_isolation_suitable immediately executed when a > compaction pass completes and the slightly increased amount of > hugepages required to meet the low/min watermarks. The rest of the > changes mostly applies to zone_reclaim_mode > 0 and doesn't affect the > default 0 value (some large system may boot with zone_reclaim_mode set > to 1 by default though, if the node distance is very high). > I'm fine with patches 2, 3 and 4 which make sense independant of the rest of the series. I'm less sure of the rest of the series. Can 2, 3 and 4 be split out and sent separately and then treat 1, 5, 6 and 7 exclusively as a zone_reclaim set please? -- 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