[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708211354010.3082@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dkegel@...gle.com,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/7] Laundry handling for direct reclaim
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > @@ -1156,6 +1156,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z
> > .swappiness = vm_swappiness,
> > .order = order,
> > };
> > + LIST_HEAD(laundry);
>
> Why is the laundry not made part of the scan_control?
That is one possibility. The other is to treat laundry as a lru type list
under zone->lru_lock. This would allow the writeback process (whichever
that is) to be independent of the producer of the laundry. Dirty pages
could be isolated from an atomic context.
-
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