Re: [PATCH] mm: forbid lumpy-reclaim in shrink_active_list()

[Konstantin Khlebnikov]

Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 03/19/2012 05:18 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > This patch reset reclaim mode in shrink_active_list() to RECLAIM_MODE_SINGLE | RECLAIM_MODE_ASYNC.
> > (sync/async sign is used only in shrink_page_list and does not affect shrink_active_list)
> >
> > Currenly shrink_active_list() sometimes works in lumpy-reclaim mode,
> > if RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM left over from earlier shrink_inactive_list().
> > Meanwhile, in age_active_anon() sc->reclaim_mode is totally zero.
> > So, current behavior is too complex and confusing, all this looks like bug.
> >
> > In general, shrink_active_list() populate inactive list for next shrink_inactive_list().
> > Lumpy shring_inactive_list() isolate pages around choosen one from both active and
> > inactive lists. So, there no reasons for lumpy-isolation in shrink_active_list()
> >
> > Proposed-by: Hugh Dickins<hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/15/583
> > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Confirmed, this is already done by commit
> 26f5f2f1aea7687565f55c20d69f0f91aa644fb8 in the
> linux-next tree.

No, your patch fix this problem only if CONFIG_COMPACTION=y
--
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/