[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090716142533.GA27165@localhost>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:25:33 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"elladan@...imo.com" <elladan@...imo.com>,
"npiggin@...e.de" <npiggin@...e.de>,
"Barnes, Jesse" <jesse.barnes@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: count only reclaimable lru pages
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:00:51PM +0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>
> > When swap is full or not present, the anon lru lists are not reclaimable
> > and thus won't be scanned. So the anon pages shall not be counted. Also
> > rename the function names to reflect the new meaning.
> >
> > It can greatly (and correctly) increase the slab scan rate under high memory
> > pressure (when most file pages have been reclaimed and swap is full/absent),
> > thus avoid possible false OOM kills.
>
> Reclaimable? Are all pages on the LRUs truly reclaimable?
No, only possibly reclaimable :)
What would you suggest? In fact I'm not totally comfortable with it.
Maybe it would be safer to simply stick with the old _lru_pages naming?
Thanks,
Fengguang
> Aside from that nit.
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
--
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