[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0906151057270.23995@gentwo.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:01:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, riel@...hat.com,
fengguang.wu@...el.com, linuxram@...ibm.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix malloc() stall in zone_reclaim() and bring
behaviour more in line with expectations V3
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > May I ask your worry?
> >
>
> Simply that I believe the intention of PF_SWAPWRITE here was to allow
> zone_reclaim() to aggressively reclaim memory if the reclaim_mode allowed
> it as it was a statement that off-node accesses are really not desired.
Right.
> Ok. I am not fully convinced but I'll not block it either if believe it's
> necessary. My current understanding is that this patch only makes a difference
> if the server is IO congested in which case the system is struggling anyway
> and an off-node access is going to be relatively small penalty overall.
> Conceivably, having PF_SWAPWRITE set makes things worse in that situation
> and the patch makes some sense.
We could drop support for RECLAIM_SWAP if that simplifies things.
--
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