linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when zone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0906081055170.21954@gentwo.org>
Date:	Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:

> > The tmpfs pages are unreclaimable and therefore should not be on the anon
> > lru.
> >
>
> tmpfs pages can be swap-backed so can be reclaimable. Regardless of what
> list they are on, we still need to know how many of them there are if
> this patch is to be avoided.

If they are reclaimable then why does it matter? They can be pushed out if
you configure zone reclaim to be that aggressive.


--
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/