Re: [PATCH 0/8] Use memory compaction instead of lumpy reclaimduring high-order allocations

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:22:41 +0000
Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Huge page allocations are not expected to be cheap but lumpy reclaim
> is still very disruptive.

Huge pages are boring.  Can we expect any benefit for the
stupid-nic-driver-which-does-order-4-GFP_ATOMIC-allocations problem?

>
> ...
>
> I haven't pushed hard on the concept of lumpy compaction yet and right
> now I don't intend to during this cycle. The initial prototypes did not
> behave as well as expected and this series improves the current situation
> a lot without introducing new algorithms. Hence, I'd like this series to
> be considered for merging.

Translation: "Andrew, wait for the next version"? :)

> I'm hoping that this series also removes the
> necessity for the "delete lumpy reclaim" patch from the THP tree.

Now I'm sad.  I read all that and was thinking "oh goody, we get to
delete something for once".  But no :(

If you can get this stuff to work nicely, why can't we remove lumpy
reclaim?
--
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/