lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority
On Fri 23-09-16 12:47:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 09/23/2016 10:23 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 23-09-16 08:55:33, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >From 1623d5bd441160569ffad3808aeeec852048e558 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> >> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:02:37 +0200
> >> Subject: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: pull no_progress_loops update to
> >> should_reclaim_retry()
> >>
> >> The should_reclaim_retry() makes decisions based on no_progress_loops, so it
> >> makes sense to also update the counter there. It will be also consistent with
> >> should_compact_retry() and compaction_retries. No functional change.
> >>
> >> [hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com: fix missing pointer dereferences]
> >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> >> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
> >
> > OK, this looks reasonable to me. Could you post both patches in a
>
> Both? I would argue that [1] might be relevant because it resets the
> number of retries. Only the should_reclaim_retry() cleanup is not
> stricly needed.

Even if it is needed which I am not really sure about it would be
easier to track than in the middle of another thread.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-23 14:07    [W:1.799 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site