Re: [PATCH 0/3] follow up nodereclaim for 32b fix

[Mel Gorman]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:36:59AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Hi,
> I have previously posted this as an RFC [1] but there didn't seem to be
> any objections other than some requests to reorganize the changes in
> a slightly different way so I am reposting the series and asking for
> inclusion.
> 
> This is a follow up on top of [2]. The patch 1 cleans up the code a bit.
> I haven't seen any real issues or bug reports but conceptualy ignoring
> the maximum eligible zone in get_scan_count is wrong by definition. This
> is what patch 2 does.  Patch 3 removes inactive_reclaimable_pages
> which was a kind of hack around for the problem which should have been
> addressed at get_scan_count.
> 
> There is one more place which needs a special handling which is not
> a part of this series. too_many_isolated can get confused as well. I
> already have some preliminary work but it still needs some testing so I
> will post it separatelly.
> 
> Michal Hocko (3):
>       mm, vmscan: cleanup lru size claculations
>       mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count
>       Revert "mm: bail out in shrink_inactive_list()"
> 

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs