lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Removal of lumpy reclaim
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 04:31 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:06:21 +0100
> > > Mel Gorman<mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > (cc'ing active people in the thread "[patch 68/92] mm: forbid
> > > > lumpy-reclaim
> > > > in shrink_active_list()")
> > > >
> > > > In the interest of keeping my fingers from the flames at LSF/MM, I'm
> > > > releasing an RFC for lumpy reclaim removal.
> > >
> > > I grabbed them, thanks.
> >
> > I do have a concern with this: I was expecting lumpy reclaim to be
> > replaced by compaction, and indeed it is when CONFIG_COMPACTION=y.
> > But when CONFIG_COMPACTION is not set, we're back to 2.6.22 in
> > relying upon blind chance to provide order>0 pages.
>
> Is this an issue for any architecture?

Dunno about any architecture as a whole; but I'd expect users of SLOB
or TINY config options to want to still use lumpy rather than the more
efficient but weightier COMPACTION+MIGRATION.

Though "size migrate.o compaction.o" on my 32-bit config does not
reach 8kB, so maybe it's not a big deal after all.

>
> I could see NOMMU being unable to use compaction, but

Yes, COMPACTION depends on MMU.

> chances are lumpy reclaim would be sufficient for that
> configuration, anyway...

That's an argument for your patch in 3.4-rc, which uses lumpy only
when !COMPACTION_BUILD. But here we're worrying about Mel's patch,
which removes the lumpy code completely.

Hugh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-09 21:21    [W:0.214 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site