On Mon 08-02-16 14:38:06, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > The previous RFC is here [1]. It didn't have a cover letter, so the description > and results are in the individual patches. FWIW I think this is a step in the right direction. I would give my Acked-by to all patches but I wasn't able to find time for a deep review and my lack of knowledge of compaction details doesn't help much. I do agree that conflating kswapd with compaction didn't really work out well and fixing this would just make the code more complex and would more prone to new bugs. In future we might want to invent something similar to watermarks and set an expected level of high order pages prepared for the allocation (e.g. have at least XMB of memory in order-9+). kcompact then could try as hard as possible to provide them. Does that sound at least doable? Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>