[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090715210253.bc137b2d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:02:53 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are
isolated already (v3)
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:53:18 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> @@ -1049,6 +1074,14 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis
> struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = get_reclaim_stat(zone, sc);
> int lumpy_reclaim = 0;
>
> + while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc))) {
> + congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10);
> +
> + /* We are about to die and free our memory. Return now. */
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> + return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> + }
mutter.
While I agree that handling fatal signals on the direct reclaim path
is probably a good thing, this seems like a fairly random place at
which to start the enhancement.
If we were to step back and approach this in a broader fashion, perhaps
we would find some commonality with the existing TIF_MEMDIE handling,
dunno.
And I question the testedness of v3 :)
--
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