[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080219083124.2daf94e9@bree.surriel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:31:24 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] the proposal of improve page reclaim by throttle
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:34:59 +1100
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 February 2008 16:44, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > background
> > ========================================
> > current VM implementation doesn't has limit of # of parallel reclaim.
> > when heavy workload, it bring to 2 bad things
> > - heavy lock contention
> > - unnecessary swap out
> I think it should maybe be a per-zone thing...
>
> What happens if you make it a per-zone mutex, and allow just a single
> process to reclaim pages from a given zone at a time? I guess that is
> going to slow down throughput a little bit in some cases though...
I agree, doing things per zone will probably work better, because
that way one process can do page reclaim on every NUMA node at
the same time.
--
All rights reversed.
--
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