[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090617120342.GB28529@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:03:42 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 07:06:46PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > 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?
>
Yes.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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