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 ? > Also true. As it is, lumpy reclaim is still there but it's never called if CONFIG_COMPACTION is set so it's already side-lined. -- 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>