On Fri 23-02-18 13:40:09, Robert Harris wrote: > If you are asking me to prove whether modifying the tuneable in the > manner above, thereby preferring compaction for more fragmented systems, > is successful then I can't answer now. I assume that the onus would > have been on Mel to show this at the time of the original commit. > However, I interpret his last comment on this patch as a request to > verify that changing the preference yields sane results. Yes, this is exactly were I was aiming... This might have been useful during the initial compaction implementation but I am not aware of any real users and I am also quite skeptical it is very much useful. I do realize that this is hand waving because I do not have any numbers at hands. The bottom line is that the users should care, really. The compaction should be as automatic as possible. We can argue about tuning for certain allocation orders and make the compaction more pro-active to provide lower latencies for those requests but deciding whether to reclaim or compact sounds like a too low level decision for admin to make and kind of unstable interface for different kernels as the implementation of the compaction changes over time. So I would really prefer to kill the tuning than try to "fix" it. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
