On Tue 23-08-16 09:40:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2016.08.23 at 09:33 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 23-08-16 13:52:45, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > [...] > > > Hello, Michal. > > > > > > I agree with partial revert but revert should be a different form. > > > Below change try to reuse should_compact_retry() version for > > > !CONFIG_COMPACTION but it turned out that it also causes regression in > > > Markus report [1]. > > > > I would argue that CONFIG_COMPACTION=n behaves so arbitrary for high > > order workloads that calling any change in that behavior a regression > > is little bit exaggerated. Disabling compaction should have a very > > strong reason. I haven't heard any so far. I am even wondering whether > > there is a legitimate reason for that these days. > > BTW, the current config description: > > CONFIG_COMPACTION: > Allows the compaction of memory for the allocation of huge pages. > > doesn't make it clear to the user that this is an essential feature. Yes I plan to send a clarification patch. -- 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>