On Thu, 12 May 2011, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > order 1 should work better, because it's less likely we end up here > (which leaves RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM on and then see what happens > at the top of page_check_references()) > > else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) Why is this DEF_PRIORITY - 2? Shouldnt it be DEF_PRIORITY? An accomodation for SLAB order 1 allocs? May I assume that the case of order 2 and 3 allocs in that case was not very well tested after the changes to introduce compaction since people were focusing on RHEL testing? -- 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>