From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755645Ab0ANGdN (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:33:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754953Ab0ANGdM (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:33:12 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:26904 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751166Ab0ANGdL (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:33:11 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=j/fgFyQOYqYUoWVmaNXOPBwlM3CSFoSTSJj9fCtvRxbIj912cThttGyAAgSqbny7L RZk/sMj8tFfBYlT1ZkPDA== Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:33:03 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: KOSAKI Motohiro cc: LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Minchan Kim , Wu Fengguang , Huang Shijie Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH] mm: Restore zone->all_unreclaimable to independence word In-Reply-To: <20100114103332.D71B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20100114103332.D71B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > commit e815af95 (change all_unreclaimable zone member to flags) chage > all_unreclaimable member to bit flag. but It have undesireble side > effect. > free_one_page() is one of most hot path in linux kernel and increasing > atomic ops in it can reduce kernel performance a bit. > > Thus, this patch revert such commit partially. at least > all_unreclaimable shouldn't share memory word with other zone flags. > I still think you need to quantify this; saying you don't have a large enough of a machine that will benefit from it isn't really a rationale for the lack of any data supporting your claim. We should be basing VM changes on data, not on speculation that there's a measurable impact here. Perhaps you could ask a colleague or another hacker to run a benchmark for you so that the changelog is complete?