Re: [PATCH] earlier allocation of order 0 pages from pcp in __alloc_pages

"Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It looks like we're now dropping into direct reclaim as the first thing
> in __alloc_pages before even trying to kick off kswapd. When the hell
> did that start? Or is that only meant to trigger if we're already below
> the low watermark level?

That's all the numa goop which Martin Hicks added.  It's all disabled if
z->reclaim_pages is zero (it is).  However we could be testing that flag a
bit earlier, I think.

And yeah, some de-spaghettification would be nice.  Certainly before adding
more logic.

Martin, should we take out the early zone reclaim logic?  It's all
unreachable at present anyway.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] earlier allocation of order 0 pages from pcp in __alloc_pages
  - From: Martin Hicks <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] earlier allocation of order 0 pages from pcp in __alloc_pages
  - From: Rohit Seth <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH] earlier allocation of order 0 pages from pcp in __alloc_pages
  - From: "Seth, Rohit" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] earlier allocation of order 0 pages from pcp in __alloc_pages
  - From: "Martin J. Bligh" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] vm - swap_prefetch v12
Next by Date: [PATCH][Fix] Fix Bug #4959: Page tables corrupted during resume on x86-64 (take 4)
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] earlier allocation of order 0 pages from pcp in __alloc_pages
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] earlier allocation of order 0 pages from pcp in __alloc_pages
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind]