Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Removal of lumpy reclaim

[Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxx>  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?

I could see NOMMU being unable to use compaction, but
chances are lumpy reclaim would be sufficient for that
configuration, anyway...

--
All rights reversed

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>