On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 01:30:33PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 02/13/2017 12:07 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:23:33PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > By and large, I like the series, particularly patches 7 and 8. I cannot > > make up my mind about the RFC patches 9 and 10 yet. Conceptually they > > seem sound but they are much more far reaching than the rest of the > > series. > > > > It would be nice if patches 1-8 could be treated in isolation with data > > on the number of extfrag events triggered, time spent in compaction and > > the success rate. Patches 9 and 10 are tricy enough that they would need > > data per patch where as patches 1-8 should be ok with data gathered for > > the whole series. > > Ok let's try again with a fresh subthread after fixing automation and > postprocessing... > > <SNIP> > > To sum up, patches 1-8 look OK to me. Patch 9 looks also very promising, but > there's danger of increased allocation latencies due to the forced compaction. > Patch 10 has either implementation bugs or there's some unforeseen consequence > of its design. > I don't have anything useful to add other than the figures for patches 1-8 look good and the fact that fragmenting events that misplace unmovable allocations is welcome. -- Mel Gorman 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>
