[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100416145706.GK19264@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:57:07 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] vmscan: simplify shrink_inactive_list()
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:40:13AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 06:54:16PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > It's a buying-time venture, I'll agree but as both approaches are only
> > > about reducing stack stack they wouldn't be long-term solutions by your
> > > criteria. What do you suggest?
> >
> > (from easy to more complicated):
> >
> > - Disable direct reclaim with 4K stacks
>
> Just to re-iterate: we're blowing the stack with direct reclaim on
> x86_64 w/ 8k stacks.
Yep, that is not being disputed. By the way, what did you use to
generate your report? Was it CONFIG_DEBUG_STACK_USAGE or something else?
I used a modified bloat-o-meter to gather my data but it'd be nice to
be sure I'm seeing the same things as you (minus XFS unless I
specifically set it up).
> The old i386/4k stack problem is a red
> herring.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@...morbit.com
>
--
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