On Thu, 12 May 2011, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > order 1 should work better, because it's less likely we end up here > (which leaves RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM on and then see what happens > at the top of page_check_references()) > > else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) Why is this DEF_PRIORITY - 2? Shouldnt it be DEF_PRIORITY? An accomodation for SLAB order 1 allocs? May I assume that the case of order 2 and 3 allocs in that case was not very well tested after the changes to introduce compaction since people were focusing on RHEL testing? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
