On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 02:43:12PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 07:07:04PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > + if (COMPACTION_BUILD) > > > + sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION; > > > + else > > > + sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM; > > > > > > > Gack, I posted the slightly wrong version. This version prevents lumpy > > reclaim ever being used. The figures I posted were for a patch where > > this condition looked like > > > > if (COMPACTION_BUILD && priority > DEF_PRIORITY - 2) > > sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION; > > else > > sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM; > > In all other place, heavy reclaim detection are used folliowing. > > if (priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) > > > So, "priority >= DEF_PRIORITY - 2" is more symmetric, I think. but if you have strong > reason, I don't oppse. > I had no strong reason other than "I don't want lumpy reclaim to be used easily". I will match the other places. Thanks -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>