On Fri 23-09-16 12:47:23, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 09/23/2016 10:23 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 23-09-16 08:55:33, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > [...] > >> >From 1623d5bd441160569ffad3808aeeec852048e558 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> From: Vlastimil Babka <vba...@suse.cz> > >> Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:02:37 +0200 > >> Subject: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: pull no_progress_loops update to > >> should_reclaim_retry() > >> > >> The should_reclaim_retry() makes decisions based on no_progress_loops, so > >> it > >> makes sense to also update the counter there. It will be also consistent > >> with > >> should_compact_retry() and compaction_retries. No functional change. > >> > >> [hillf...@alibaba-inc.com: fix missing pointer dereferences] > >> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vba...@suse.cz> > >> Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf...@alibaba-inc.com> > > > > OK, this looks reasonable to me. Could you post both patches in a > > Both? I would argue that [1] might be relevant because it resets the > number of retries. Only the should_reclaim_retry() cleanup is not > stricly needed.
Even if it is needed which I am not really sure about it would be easier to track than in the middle of another thread. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
