Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] introduce kcompactd and stop compacting in kswapd | From | Vlastimil Babka <> | Date | Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:38:55 +0100 |
| |
On 03/09/2016 04:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 08-02-16 14:38:06, Vlastimil Babka wrote: >> The previous RFC is here [1]. It didn't have a cover letter, so the description >> and results are in the individual patches. > > FWIW I think this is a step in the right direction. I would give my
Thanks!
> Acked-by to all patches but I wasn't able to find time for a deep review > and my lack of knowledge of compaction details doesn't help much. I do > agree that conflating kswapd with compaction didn't really work out well > and fixing this would just make the code more complex and would more > prone to new bugs.
Yeah, it seems that direct reclaim/compaction is complex enough already...
> In future we might want to invent something similar > to watermarks and set an expected level of high order pages prepared for > the allocation (e.g. have at least XMB of memory in order-9+). kcompact > then could try as hard as possible to provide them. Does that sound at > least doable?
Sure, that was/is part of the plan. But I was trimming the series for initial merge over the past year to arrive at a starting point where reaching consensus is easier.
> Thanks! >
| |