[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:14:32 +0000
From: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Lumpy Reclaim V3
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +0000
> Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org> wrote:
>
>> This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set.
>
> more...
>
> One concern is that when the code goes to reclaim a lump and fails, we end
> up reclaiming a number of pages which we didn't really want to reclaim.
> Regardless of the LRU status of those pages.
>
> I think what we should do here is to add the appropriate vmstat counters
> for us to be able to assess the frequency of this occurring, then throw a
> spread of workloads at it. If that work indicates that there's a problem
> then we should look at being a bit smarter about whether all the pages look
> to be reclaimable and if not, restore them all and give up.
>
> Also, I suspect it would be cleaner and faster to pass the `active' flag
> into isolate_lru_pages(), rather than calculating it on the fly. And I
> don't think we need to calculate it on every pass through the loop?
>
>
> We really do need those vmstat counters to let us see how effective this
> thing is being. Basic success/fail stuff. Per-zone, I guess.
Sounds like a cue ... I'll go do that.
-apw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists