On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 01:30:33PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 12:07 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:23:33PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >
> > By and large, I like the series, particularly patches 7 and 8. I cannot
> > make up my mind about the RFC patche
On 02/13/2017 12:07 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:23:33PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> By and large, I like the series, particularly patches 7 and 8. I cannot
> make up my mind about the RFC patches 9 and 10 yet. Conceptually they
> seem sound but they are much more far r
On 02/16/2017 04:12 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 02/15/2017 03:29 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 02/13/2017 12:07 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:23:33PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>
>>> By and large, I like the series, particularly patches 7 and 8. I cannot
>>> make
On 02/15/2017 03:29 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 12:07 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:23:33PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>
>> By and large, I like the series, particularly patches 7 and 8. I cannot
>> make up my mind about the RFC patches 9 and 10 yet. Concept
On 15.2.2017 17:11, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 02/15/2017 03:29 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Results for patch 4 ("count movable pages when stealing from pageblock")
>> are really puzzling me, as it increases the number of fragmenting events
>> for reclaimable allocations, implicating "reclaimabl
On 02/15/2017 03:29 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Results for patch 4 ("count movable pages when stealing from pageblock")
> are really puzzling me, as it increases the number of fragmenting events
> for reclaimable allocations, implicating "reclaimable placed with (i.e.
> falling back to) unmovable
On 02/13/2017 12:07 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:23:33PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> By and large, I like the series, particularly patches 7 and 8. I cannot
> make up my mind about the RFC patches 9 and 10 yet. Conceptually they
> seem sound but they are much more far r
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:23:33PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is a v2 of [1] from last year, which was a response to Johanes' worries
> about mobility grouping regressions. There are some new patches and the order
> goes from cleanups to "obvious wins" towards "just RFC" (last tw
8 matches
Mail list logo