[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f11576a0812080630j4327dbbgf0aa0e332156d229@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 23:30:40 +0900
From: "KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Lee Schermerhorn" <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Cc: "Dave Hansen" <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, y-goto@...fujitsu.com,
npiggin@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory hotplug: run lru_add_drain_all() on each cpu
>> Lee, Could you read this thread and explain why you add ifdef CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU?
>> I am not sure about that Dave's proposal is safe change. (but I guess he is right)
>
> I added that back in Patch 17/25 "Mlocked Pages are
> non-reclaimable" [before nonreclaimable became unevictable". I did this
> because "lru_add_drain_all()" was only used by numa code prior to this,
> and was under #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA". I called lru_add_drain_all() from
> __mlock_vma_pages_range() [since removed] and I wanted the
> nonreclaimable/unevictable mlocked pages feature to be independent of
> numa. So, I had to ensure that we defined the function for
> nonreclaimable/unevictable lru as well as numa.
>
> Now it appears that hotplug and memcg also depend on
> lru_add_drain_all(), so making it depend on 'SMP looks reasonable to me.
Thanks a lot.
I'll make that patch.
--
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