On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 05:00:57PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Hi > > > My tree uses compaction in a fine way inside kswapd too and tons of > > systems are running without lumpy and floods of order 9 allocations > > with only compaction (in direct reclaim and kswapd) without the > > slighest problem. Furthermore I extended compaction for all > > allocations not just that PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER (maybe I already > > removed all PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER checks?). There's no good reason > > not to use compaction for every allocation including 1,2,3, and things > > works fine this way. > > Interesting. I parsed this you have compaction improvement. If so, > can you please post them? Generically, 1) improve the feature 2) remove > unused one is safety order. In the other hand, reverse order seems to has > regression risk. THP is way higher priority than the compaction improvements, so the compaction improvements are not at the top of the queue: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git;a=shortlog http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git;a=commitdiff;h=d8f02410d718725a7daaf192af33abc41dcfae16;hp=39c4a61fedc5f5bf0c95a60483ac0acea1a9a757 At the top of the queue there is the lumpy_reclaim removal as that's higher priority than THP. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>