[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:27:17 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <onestero@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] lru_add_drain_all() vs isolation
> The usefulness of a scheme like this requires:
>
> 1. There are cpus that continually execute user space code
> without system interaction.
>
> 2. There are repeated VM activities that require page isolation /
> migration.
>
> The first page isolation activity will then clear the lru caches of the
> processes doing number crunching in user space (and therefore the first
> isolation will still interrupt). The second and following isolation will
> then no longer interrupt the processes.
>
> 2. is rare. So the question is if the additional code in the LRU handling
> can be justified. If lru handling is not time sensitive then yes.
Christoph, I'd like to discuss a bit related (and almost unrelated) thing.
I think page migration don't need lru_add_drain_all() as synchronous, because
page migration have 10 times retry.
Then asynchronous lru_add_drain_all() cause
- if system isn't under heavy pressure, retry succussfull.
- if system is under heavy pressure or RT-thread work busy busy loop, retry failure.
I don't think this is problematic bahavior. Also, mlock can use asynchrounous lru drain.
What do you think?
--
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