On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:22:41 +0000 Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Huge page allocations are not expected to be cheap but lumpy reclaim > is still very disruptive. Huge pages are boring. Can we expect any benefit for the stupid-nic-driver-which-does-order-4-GFP_ATOMIC-allocations problem? > > ... > > I haven't pushed hard on the concept of lumpy compaction yet and right > now I don't intend to during this cycle. The initial prototypes did not > behave as well as expected and this series improves the current situation > a lot without introducing new algorithms. Hence, I'd like this series to > be considered for merging. Translation: "Andrew, wait for the next version"? :) > I'm hoping that this series also removes the > necessity for the "delete lumpy reclaim" patch from the THP tree. Now I'm sad. I read all that and was thinking "oh goody, we get to delete something for once". But no :( If you can get this stuff to work nicely, why can't we remove lumpy reclaim? -- 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>