On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:36:59AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > Hi, > I have previously posted this as an RFC [1] but there didn't seem to be > any objections other than some requests to reorganize the changes in > a slightly different way so I am reposting the series and asking for > inclusion. > > This is a follow up on top of [2]. The patch 1 cleans up the code a bit. > I haven't seen any real issues or bug reports but conceptualy ignoring > the maximum eligible zone in get_scan_count is wrong by definition. This > is what patch 2 does. Patch 3 removes inactive_reclaimable_pages > which was a kind of hack around for the problem which should have been > addressed at get_scan_count. > > There is one more place which needs a special handling which is not > a part of this series. too_many_isolated can get confused as well. I > already have some preliminary work but it still needs some testing so I > will post it separatelly. > > Michal Hocko (3): > mm, vmscan: cleanup lru size claculations > mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count > Revert "mm: bail out in shrink_inactive_list()" >
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <[email protected]> -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
