[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:59:29 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] vmscan don't isolate too many pages
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> FAQ
> -------
> Q: Why do you compared zone accumulate pages, not individual zone pages?
> A: If we check individual zone, #-of-reclaimer is restricted by smallest zone.
> it mean decreasing the performance of the system having small dma zone.
That is a clever solution! I was playing around a bit with
doing it on a per-zone basis. Your idea is much nicer.
However, I can see one potential problem with your patch:
+ nr_inactive += zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_ANON);
+ nr_inactive += zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE);
+ nr_isolated += zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_ANON);
+ nr_isolated += zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_FILE);
+ }
+
+ return nr_isolated > nr_inactive;
What if we ran out of swap space, or are not scanning the
anon list at all for some reason?
It is possible that there are no inactive_file pages left,
with all file pages already isolated, and your function
still letting reclaimers through.
This means you could still get a spurious OOM.
I guess I should mail out my (ugly) approach, so we can
compare the two :)
--
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