> 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? Ah, got it. The history says the problem haven't occur for three years. thus I meant past: code exist, but broken and don't work for three years. new: code removed. What's different? But last minchan's mail pointed out recent drain_all_pages() stuff depend on a return value of try_to_free_pages. thus, I've made new patch and sent it. please see it? -- 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>