lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-15 10:21    [W:0.124 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site