Re: [PATCH 11/11] Do not compact within a preferred zone after a compaction failure

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 1:53 pm

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:25:46 +0000
Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:


um.  "Two wrongs don't make a right".  We should fix the other sites,
not use them as excuses ;)

What _is_ a good measure of "time" in this code?  "number of pages
scanned" is a pretty good one in reclaim.  We want something which will
adapt itself to amount-of-memory, number-of-cpus, speed-of-cpus,
nature-of-workload, etc, etc.

Is it possible to come up with some simple metric which approximately
reflects how busy this code is, then pace ourselves via that?


--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 11/11] Do not compact within a preferred zone a ..., Christoph Lameter, (Tue Mar 23, 11:31 am)
Re: [PATCH 11/11] Do not compact within a preferred zone a ..., Christoph Lameter, (Tue Mar 23, 12:27 pm)
Re: [PATCH 11/11] Do not compact within a preferred zone a ..., Christoph Lameter, (Wed Mar 24, 12:54 pm)
Re: [PATCH 11/11] Do not compact within a preferred zone a ..., Andrew Morton, (Wed Mar 24, 1:53 pm)