[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100706101235.GE13780@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 11:12:35 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/14] vmscan: Do not writeback pages in direct reclaim
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:36:41AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > Ok, that's reasonable as I'm still working on that patch. For example, the
> > patch disabled anonymous page writeback which is unnecessary as the stack
> > usage for anon writeback is less than file writeback.
>
> How do we examine swap-on-file?
>
Anything in particular wrong with the following?
/*
* For now, only kswapd can writeback filesystem pages as otherwise
* there is a stack overflow risk
*/
static inline bool reclaim_can_writeback(struct scan_control *sc,
struct page *page)
{
return !page_is_file_cache(page) || current_is_kswapd();
}
Even if it is a swapfile, I didn't spot a case where the filesystems
writepage would be called. Did I miss something?
--
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