[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090508113820.GL11596@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:38:20 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"hugh@...itas.com" <hugh@...itas.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg fix stale swap cache account leak v6
x
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> +struct swapio_check {
> + spinlock_t lock;
> + void *swap_bio_list;
> + struct delayed_work work;
> +} stale_swap_check;
Small nit. It's nice that you lined up the first two fields, but it
would be nice to line up the third one too:
struct swapio_check {
spinlock_t lock;
void *swap_bio_list;
struct delayed_work work;
} stale_swap_check;
> + while (nr--) {
> + cond_resched();
> + spin_lock_irq(&sc->lock);
> + bio = sc->swap_bio_list;
> @@ -66,6 +190,7 @@ static void end_swap_bio_write(struct bi
> (unsigned long long)bio->bi_sector);
> ClearPageReclaim(page);
> }
> + mem_cgroup_swapio_check_again(bio, page);
Hm, this patch adds quite a bit of scanning overhead to
end_swap_bio_write(), to work around artifacts of a global LRU not
working well with a partitioned system's per-partition LRU needs.
Isnt the right solution to have a better LRU that is aware of this,
instead of polling around in the hope of cleaning up stale entries?
Ingo
--
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