On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:48:19 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:11:46 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely > > > > zone.all_unreclaimable is there to prevent reclaim from wasting CPU > > cycles scanning a zone which has no reclaimable pages. When originally > > implemented it did this very well. > > > > That you guys keep breaking it, or don't feel like improving it is not a > > reason to remove it! > > > > If the code is unneeded and the kernel now reliably solves this problem > > by other means then this should have been fully explained in the > > changelog, but it was not even mentioned. > > The changelog says, the logic was removed at 2008. three years ago. > even though it's unintentionally. and I and minchan tried to resurrect > the broken logic and resurrected a bug in the logic too. then, we > are discussed it should die or alive. > > Which part is hard to understand for you? > The part which isn't there: how does the kernel now address the problem which that code fixed? -- 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>