On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:35:02AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 01/27/2012 04:13 AM, Hillf Danton wrote: > > >>@@ -1195,7 +1195,7 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan, > >> BUG(); > >> } > >> > >>- if (!order) > >>+ if (!sc->order || !(sc->reclaim_mode& RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM)) > >> continue; > >> > >Just a tiny advice 8-) > > > >mind to move checking lumpy reclaim out of the loop, > >something like > > Hehe, I made the change the way it is on request > of Mel Gorman :) > Yes. I recognise that checking inside the loop like this results in a tiny hit but it is hardly critical. By putting the check here, it is absolutely clear that this is now a lumpy-reclaim only thing where it used to be used by both lumpy reclaim and reclaim/compaction. It'll make deleting lumpy reclaim a little bit easier in the future. -- 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>