On Fri 20-01-17 22:27:27, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:23:36PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > So what do you think about the following? Tetsuo, would you be willing > > > to run this patch through your torture testing please? > > > > I'm fine with treating this as a starting point. > > OK. So I tried to test this patch but I failed at preparation step. > There are too many pending mm patches and I'm not sure which patch on > which linux-next snapshot I should try. The current linux-next should be good to test. It contains all patches sitting in the mmotm tree. If you want a more stable base then you can use mmotm git tree (git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git #since-4.9 or its #auto-latest alias) > Also as another question, > too_many_isolated() loop exists in both mm/vmscan.c and mm/compaction.c > but why this patch does not touch the loop in mm/compaction.c part? I am not yet convinced the compaction suffers from the same problem. Compaction backs off much sooner so that path shouldn't get into pathological situation AFAICS. I might be wrong here but I think we should start with the reclaim path first. -- 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>
