On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 05:26:27PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:12:54 +0000 > Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > Ultimately we should be able to. Lumpy reclaim is still there for the > > !CONFIG_COMPACTION case and to have an option if we find that compaction > > behaves badly for some reason. > > > > Hmm. CONFIG_COMPACTION depends on CONFIG_MMU. lumpy reclaim will be for NOMMU, > finally ? It's because migration depends on MMU. But we should be able to make a NOMMU version of migration that just does page cache, which is all that is reclaimable on NOMMU anyway. At this point, the MMU dependency can go away, and so can lumpy reclaim. Hannes PS: I'm recovering from a cold, will catch up with the backlog later -- 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>