Re: [PATCH]compaction: checks correct fragmentation index

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 04:36:41PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> fragmentation_index() returns -1000 when the allocation might succeed
> This doesn't match the comment and code in compaction_suitable(). I
> thought compaction_suitable should return COMPACT_PARTIAL in -1000
> case, because in this case allocation could succeed depending on
> watermarks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx>

Well spotted. The impact of this is that compaction starts and
compact_finished() is called which rechecks the watermarks and the
free lists. It should have the same result in that compaction should
not start but is more expensive.

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

--
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>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]