Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm,vmscan: Reclaim order-0 and compact instead oflumpy reclaim when under light pressure

[Mel Gorman]

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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/