On Monday 11 June 2012 03:26:49 Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi Bartlomiej, > > On 06/08/2012 05:46 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > This version is much simpler as it just uses __count_immobile_pages() > > instead of using its own open coded version and it integrates changes > > > That's a good idea. I don't have noticed that function is there. > When I look at the function, it has a problem, too. > Please, look at this. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/10/180 > > If reviewer is okay that patch, I would like to resend your patch based on that. Ok, I would later merge all changes into v11 and rebase on top of your patch. > > from Minchan Kim (without page_count change as it doesn't seem correct > > > Why do you think so? > If it isn't correct, how can you prevent racing with THP page freeing? After seeing the explanation for the previous fix it is all clear now. > > and __count_immobile_pages() does the check in the standard way; if it > > still is a problem I think that removing 1st phase check altogether > > would be better instead of adding more locking complexity). > > > > The patch also adds compact_rescued_unmovable_blocks vmevent to vmstats > > to make it possible to easily check if the code is working in practice. > > > I think that part should be another patch. > > 1. Adding new vmstat would be arguable so it might interrupt this patch merging. Why would it be arguable? It seems non-intrusive and obvious to me. > 2. New vmstat adding is just for this patch is effective or not in real practice > so if we prove it in future, let's revert the vmstat. Separating it would make it > easily. I would like to add this vmstat permanently, not only for the testing period.. Best regards, -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Samsung Poland R&D Center -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>