[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090617190204.99C6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:06:46 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
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 Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > I don't have a particular workload in mind to be perfectly honest. I'm just not
> > convinced of the wisdom of trying to unmap pages by default in zone_reclaim()
> > just because the NUMA distances happen to be large.
>
> zone reclaim = 1 is supposed to be light weight with minimal impact. The
> intend was just to remove potentially unused pagecache pages so that node
> local allocations can succeed again. So lets not unmap pages.
hm, At least major two zone reclaim developer disagree my patch. Thus I have to
agree with you, because I really don't hope to ignore other developer's opnion.
So, as far as I understand, the conclusion of this thread are
- Drop my patch
- instead, implement improvement patch of (may_unmap && page_mapped()) case
- the documentation should be changed
- it's my homework(?)
Can you agree this?
--
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