From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm,vmscan: Reclaim order-0 and compact instead of lumpy reclaim when under light pressure
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:02:03 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101114150039.E028.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101112093742.GA3537@csn.ul.ie>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 07:07:04PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > + if (COMPACTION_BUILD)
> > + sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION;
> > + else
> > + sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM;
> >
>
> Gack, I posted the slightly wrong version. This version prevents lumpy
> reclaim ever being used. The figures I posted were for a patch where
> this condition looked like
>
> if (COMPACTION_BUILD && priority > DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION;
> else
> sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM;
Can you please tell us your opinition which is better 1) automatically turn lumby on
by priority (this approach) 2) introduce GFP_LUMPY (andrea proposed). I'm not
sure which is better, then I'd like to hear both pros/cons concern.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-14 6:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-11 19:07 [RFC PATCH 0/3] Use compaction to reduce a dependency on lumpy reclaim Mel Gorman
2010-11-11 19:07 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm,vmscan: Convert lumpy_mode into a bitmask Mel Gorman
2010-11-14 5:40 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-15 9:16 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-11 19:07 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm,compaction: Add COMPACTION_BUILD Mel Gorman
2010-11-14 5:45 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-15 9:26 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-11 19:07 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm,vmscan: Reclaim order-0 and compact instead of lumpy reclaim when under light pressure Mel Gorman
2010-11-12 9:37 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-14 5:43 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-15 9:17 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-14 6:02 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2010-11-15 9:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-15 15:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-14 5:59 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-15 9:25 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-14 5:31 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] Use compaction to reduce a dependency on lumpy reclaim KOSAKI Motohiro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101114150039.E028.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).