[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100628103508.3870.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:37:47 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: zone_reclaim don't call disable_swap_token()
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:31 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > Swap token don't works when zone reclaim is enabled since it was born.
> > Because __zone_reclaim() always call disable_swap_token()
> > unconditionally.
> >
> > This kill swap token feature completely. As far as I know, nobody want
> > to that. Remove it.
> >
>
> In f7b7fd8f3ebbb, Rik added disable_swap_token.
> At that time, sc.priority in zone_reclaim is zero so it does make sense.
> But in a92f71263a, Christoph changed the priority to begin from
> ZONE_RECLAIM_PRIORITY with remained disable_swap_token. It doesn't
> make sense.
>
> So doesn't we add disable_swap_token following as than removing?
f7b7fd8f3ebbb says disable_swap_token was introduced to prevent OOM.
but zone reclaim failure don't make OOM. instead, fallback to try_to_free_pages().
If the system have really heavy pressure, do_try_to_free_pages()
will call disable_swap_token().
So, What benefit is there?
--
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