On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:48:19 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:11:46 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely

zone.all_unreclaimable is there to prevent reclaim from wasting CPU
cycles scanning a zone which has no reclaimable pages.  When originally
implemented it did this very well.

That you guys keep breaking it, or don't feel like improving it is not a
reason to remove it!

If the code is unneeded and the kernel now reliably solves this problem
by other means then this should have been fully explained in the
changelog, but it was not even mentioned.

The changelog says, the logic was removed at 2008. three years ago.
even though it's unintentionally. and I and minchan tried to resurrect
the broken logic and resurrected a bug in the logic too. then, we
are discussed it should die or alive.

Which part is hard to understand for you?

The part which isn't there: how does the kernel now address the problem
which that code fixed?

Ah, got it.
The history says the problem haven't occur for three years. thus I
meant

past: code exist, but broken and don't work for three years.
new:  code removed.

What's different? But last minchan's mail pointed out recent
drain_all_pages() stuff depend on a return value of try_to_free_pages.

thus, I've made new patch and sent it. please see it?




--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  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@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>