On Wed 27-09-17 23:10:08, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 03:50:34PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 27-09-17 22:41:17, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 03:22:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > simply cannot disable swap readahead when page-cluster is 0? > > > > > > That's was what I want really but Huang want to use two readahead > > > algorithms in parallel so he wanted to keep two separated disable > > > knobs. > > > > If it breaks existing and documented behavior then it is a clear > > regression and it should be fixed. I do not see why this should be > > disputable at all. > > Indeed but Huang doesn't think so. He has thought it's not a regression. > Frankly speaking, I'm really bored of discussing with it. > https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=150526413319763&w=2 Then send a patch explaining why you consider this a regression with some numbers backing it and I will happily ack it. > So I passed the decision to Andrew. > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<20170913014019.GB29422@bbox> > > The config option idea is compromise approach although I don't like it > and still believe it's simple clear *regression* so 0 page-cluster > should keep the swap readahead disabled. It is not a compromise. The regression is still there for many users potentially (just consider zram distribution kernel users...). -- 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>
