[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A2D24B0.4080301@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:48:16 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
yanmin.zhang@...el.com, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
linuxram@...ibm.com, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when zone_reclaim()
scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA
Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:31:09AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Mel Gorman wrote:
>>
>>> The scanning occurs because zone_reclaim() cannot tell
>>> in advance the scan is pointless because the counters do not distinguish
>>> between pagecache pages backed by disk and by RAM.
>> Yes it can. Since 2.6.27, filesystem backed and swap/ram backed
>> pages have been living on separate LRU lists.
>
> Yes, they're on separate LRU lists but they are not the only pages on those
> lists. The tmpfs pages are mixed in together with anonymous pages so we
> cannot use NR_*_ANON.
>
> Look at patch 2 and where I introduced;
I have to admit I did not read patches 2 and 3 before
replying to the (strange looking, at the time) text
above patch 1.
With that logic from patch 2 in place, patch 1 makes
perfect sense.
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
--
All rights reversed.
--
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