From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f200.google.com (mail-wr0-f200.google.com [209.85.128.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2846B0038 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wr0-f200.google.com with SMTP id 67so35722973wrb.5 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:07:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound-smtp04.blacknight.com (outbound-smtp04.blacknight.com. [81.17.249.35]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5si13393300wrr.176.2017.02.13.03.07.02 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:07:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.blacknight.com (pemlinmail04.blacknight.ie [81.17.254.17]) by outbound-smtp04.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 852A498DEB for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:07:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:07:02 +0000 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] try to reduce fragmenting fallbacks Message-ID: <20170213110701.vb4e6zrwhwliwm7k@techsingularity.net> References: <20170210172343.30283-1-vbabka@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170210172343.30283-1-vbabka@suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner , Joonsoo Kim , David Rientjes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:23:33PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > Hi, > > this is a v2 of [1] from last year, which was a response to Johanes' worries > about mobility grouping regressions. There are some new patches and the order > goes from cleanups to "obvious wins" towards "just RFC" (last two patches). > But it's all theoretical for now, I'm trying to run some tests with the usual > problem of not having good workloads and metrics :) But I'd like to hear some > feedback anyway. For now this is based on v4.9. > > I think the only substantial new patch is 08/10, the rest is some cleanups, > small tweaks and bugfixes. > By and large, I like the series, particularly patches 7 and 8. I cannot make up my mind about the RFC patches 9 and 10 yet. Conceptually they seem sound but they are much more far reaching than the rest of the series. It would be nice if patches 1-8 could be treated in isolation with data on the number of extfrag events triggered, time spent in compaction and the success rate. Patches 9 and 10 are tricy enough that they would need data per patch where as patches 1-8 should be ok with data gathered for the whole series. -- 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