[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080625150141.D845.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:08:59 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: "MinChan Kim" <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, "Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Lee Schermerhorn" <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
"Takenori Nagano" <t-nagano@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] prevent incorrect oom under split_lru
Hi Kim-san,
> >> So, if priority==0, We should try to reclaim all page for prevent OOM.
> >
> > You are absolutely right. Good catch.
>
> I have a concern about application latency.
> If lru list have many pages, it take a very long time to scan pages.
> More system have many ram, More many time to scan pages.
No problem.
priority==0 indicate emergency.
it doesn't happend on typical workload.
> Of course I know this is trade-off between memory efficiency VS latency.
> But In embedded, some application think latency is more important
> thing than memory efficiency.
> We need some mechanism to cut off scanning time.
>
> I think Takenori Nagano's "memory reclaim more efficiently patch" is
> proper to reduce application latency in this case If we modify some
> code.
I think this is off-topic.
but Yes.
both my page reclaim throttle and nagano-san's patch provide
reclaim cut off mechanism.
and more off-topic,
nagano-san's patch improve only priority==12.
So, typical embedded doesn't improve so big because
embedded system does't have so large memory.
--
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