Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:17:19 +0000 | From | Mel Gorman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm,vmscan: Reclaim order-0 and compact instead of lumpy reclaim when under light pressure |
| |
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 02:43:12PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > 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; > > In all other place, heavy reclaim detection are used folliowing. > > if (priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) > > > So, "priority >= DEF_PRIORITY - 2" is more symmetric, I think. but if you have strong > reason, I don't oppse. >
I had no strong reason other than "I don't want lumpy reclaim to be used easily". I will match the other places. Thanks
-- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
| |