On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 04:07:06PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 10/07/2011 11:17 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > >If compaction can proceed, shrink_zones() stops doing any work but > >the callers still shrink_slab(), raises the priority and potentially > >sleeps. This patch aborts direct reclaim/compaction entirely if > >compaction can proceed. > > > >Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman<mgorman@xxxxxxx> > > This patch makes sense to me, but I have not tested it like > the first one. > Do if you can. > Mel, have you tested this patch? Yes. > Did you see any changed > behaviour vs. just the first patch? > It's marginal and could be confirmation bias on my part. Basically, there is noise when this path is being exercised but there were fewer slabs scanned. However, I don't know what the variances are and whether the reduction was within the noise or not but it makes sense that it would scan less. If I profiled carefully, I might be able to show that a few additional cycles are spent raising the priority but it would be marginal. While patch 1 is very clear, patch 2 depends on reviewers deciding it "makes sense". > Having said that, I'm pretty sure the patch is ok :) > Care to ack? -- Mel Gorman 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>