On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:35:42AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: > Hi, > >I think simple patch is returning "return cc->nr_migratepages ? ISOLATE_SUCCESS : ISOLATE_NONE;" > >It's very clear and readable, I think. > >In this patch, what's the problem you think? > > > sorry for the wrong thread, please read the following thread: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=132532266130861&w=2 Huang, Thanks for notice that thread. I read and if I understand correctly, the point is that Mel want to see tracepoint "trace_mm_compaction_migratepages" and account "count_vm_event(COMPACTBLOCKS);" My patch does accounting COMPACTBLOCKS so it's not a problem. The problem is my patch doesn't emit trace of "trace_mm_compaction_migratepages". But doesn't it matter? When we doesn't isolate any page at all, both argument in trace_mm_compaction_migratepages are always zero. Is it meaningful tracepoint? Do we really want it? > > Best Regards > Huang Shijie > -- 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>