[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090312130200.5c0e19d1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:02:00 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] memcg softlimit hooks to kswapd
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:28:37 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2009-03-12 10:00:08]:
> > + return;
> > +}
>
> I experimented a *lot* with zone reclaim and found it to be not so
> effective. Here is why
>
> 1. We have no control over priority or how much to scan, that is
> controlled by balance_pgdat(). If we find that we are unable to scan
> anything, we continue scanning with the scan > 0 check, but we scan
> the same pages and the same number, because shrink_zone does scan >>
> priority.
If sc->nr_reclaimd==0, "false" is passed and mem_cgroup_schedule_end()
and it will be moved to INACTIVE queue. (and not appear here again.)
> 2. If we fail to reclaim pages in shrink_zone_softlimit, shrink_zone()
> will reclaim pages independent of the soft limit for us
>
yes. It's intentional behavior.
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