On Mon, 17 Mar 2014, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 09:20:16PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > Hannes, your patch looks reasonable to me, and as I read it would > > be well complemented by Suleiman's and mine; but I do worry that > > the "scan_balance = SCAN_ANON" block you're removing was inserted > > for good reason, and its removal bring complaint from some direction. > > It's been introduced with the original LRU split patch but there is no > explanation why. Rik's concern now was that the scan/rotate numbers > might not be too meaningful with very little cache. > > > By the way, I notice you marked yours for stable [3.12+]: > > if it's for stable at all, shouldn't it be for 3.9+? > > (well, maybe nobody's doing a 3.9.N.M but 3.10.N is still alive). > > The code I'm removing is fairly old and it's only been reported to > create problems starting with the fair zone allocator in 3.12. Ah, you're right, thanks. Hugh -- 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>