On Wed 04-05-16 10:12:43, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 05/04/2016 07:45 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >I still don't agree with some part of this patchset that deal with > >!costly order. As you know, there was two regression reports from Hugh > >and Aaron and you fixed them by ensuring to trigger compaction. I > >think that these show the problem of this patchset. Previous kernel > >doesn't need to ensure to trigger compaction and just works fine in > >any case. > > IIRC previous kernel somehow subtly never OOM'd for !costly orders. So > anything that introduces the possibility of OOM may look like regression for > some corner case workloads.
The bug fixed by this series was COMPACTION specific because compaction_ready is not considered otherwise. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
