[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4862F5BB.9030200@ah.jp.nec.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:49:47 +0900
From: Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@...jp.nec.com>
To: MinChan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <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
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] prevent incorrect oom under split_lru
MinChan Kim wrote:
> Hi peter,
>
> I agree with you. but if application's virtual address space is big,
> we have a hard problem with mlockall since memory pressure might be a
> big.
> Of course, It will be a RT application design problem.
>
>> The much more important case is desktop usage - that is where we run non
>> real-time code, but do expect 'low' latency due to user-interaction.
>>
>> >From hitting swap on my 512M laptop (rather frequent occurance) I know
>> we can do better here,..
>>
>
> Absolutely. It is another example. So, I suggest following patch.
> It's based on idea of Takenori Nagano's memory reclaim more efficiently.
Hi Kim-san,
Thank you for agreeing with me.
I have one question.
My patch don't mind priority. Why do you need "priority == 0"?
Thanks,
Takenori
--
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