Re: [PATCH] Re: kswapd stuck using 100% CPU

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi Mel,

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The API looks fragile and this patch isn't exactly making it any
>> better. Why don't we make compaction_suitable() return something other
>> than COMPACT_SKIPPED for !CONFIG_COMPACTION case?
>
> Returning COMPACT_PARTIAL or COMPACT_CONTINUE would confuse the check in
> should_continue_reclaim. A fourth return type could be added but an
> obvious name does not spring to mind that would end up being similar to
> just adding a CONFIG_COMPACTION check.

How about COMPACT_DISABLED?

The current API just doesn't make sense from practical point of view.
Anyone calling compaction_suitable() needs to do the COMPAT_BUILD
check first which is a non-obvious and error-prone API.

                        Pekka
--
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/