[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080528101229.f14e0f09.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:12:29 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kosaki Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 00/16] VM pageout scalability improvements (V8)
On Tue, 27 May 2008 11:54:02 -0400
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com> wrote:
> Since Balbir is starting to look at this, I need to ask about
> interaction with the memory controller. It is currently unaware of the
> noreclaim list. I'm not sure what will happen if/when the memory
> controller tries to reclaim a page that system has moved to the
> noreclaim list. Something we'll need to address. It's on my list, but
> I won't get to it for a couple of weeks.
>
In my understanding, 2 checks we have to do.
1. When memcg finds PG_noreclaim page in its LRU, move it to noreclaim list of
memcg.
2. When PG_noreclaim page is moved back to generic LRU, memcg should move
it on its list. (we have to add a hook somewhere.)
But this may break current 'loose' synchronization between global LRU and
memcg's LRU. When PG_noreclaim page is put back into active/inactive LRU ?
concerns are
A. how to implement '2'
B. race condtions.
But maybe we don't have to write a big patch.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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