> On 23 Feb 2018, at 09:10, Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon 19-02-18 14:30:36, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 19 Feb 2018, at 12:39, Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon 19-02-18 12:14:26, Rob
> On 19 Feb 2018, at 12:39, Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon 19-02-18 12:14:26, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 19 Feb 2018, at 08:26, Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun 18-02-18 16:47:55, ro
> On 19 Feb 2018, at 13:10, Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:26:39PM +, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 19 Feb 2018, at 09:47, Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 18
already and adjusting
> that default should be supported by data indicating it's safe.
Would it be acceptable to demonstrate using tracing that in both the
pre- and post-patch cases
1. compaction is attempted regardless of fragmentation index,
excepting that
2. reclaim is preferred
eaning that the existing behaviour will be unchanged.
Changing sysctl_extfrag_threshold back to something non-zero in a future
patch would effect the behaviour intended by the original code but would
require more comprehensive testing since it would modify the kernel's
performance under memory press
