From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com (mail-pd0-f179.google.com [209.85.192.179]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6DD86B00AB for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:34:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w10so5917898pde.38 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com (mail-pd0-x230.google.com [2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e6si7554252pbj.343.2014.03.17.11.34.31 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id r10so5893229pdi.21 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:33:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [patch] mm: vmscan: do not swap anon pages just because free+file is low In-Reply-To: <20140317151553.GG14688@cmpxchg.org> Message-ID: References: <1394811302-30468-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <53232901.5030307@redhat.com> <20140314170807.GW10663@suse.de> <20140317151553.GG14688@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Hugh Dickins , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Rafael Aquini , Suleiman Souhlal , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 09:20:16PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > Hannes, your patch looks reasonable to me, and as I read it would > > be well complemented by Suleiman's and mine; but I do worry that > > the "scan_balance = SCAN_ANON" block you're removing was inserted > > for good reason, and its removal bring complaint from some direction. > > It's been introduced with the original LRU split patch but there is no > explanation why. Rik's concern now was that the scan/rotate numbers > might not be too meaningful with very little cache. > > > By the way, I notice you marked yours for stable [3.12+]: > > if it's for stable at all, shouldn't it be for 3.9+? > > (well, maybe nobody's doing a 3.9.N.M but 3.10.N is still alive). > > The code I'm removing is fairly old and it's only been reported to > create problems starting with the fair zone allocator in 3.12. Ah, you're right, thanks. Hugh -- 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