[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTin7TbK1dNjPG6jz_FaJy-QgOjDJaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:46:29 +0900
From: Hiroyuki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyuki@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Lutz Vieweg <lvml@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: preallocate page before lock_page at filemap COW.
(WasRe: [PATCH V2] mm: Do not keep page locked during page fault while
charging it for memcg
2011/6/24 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>:
> Sorry, forgot to send my
> Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e>
>
Thanks.
> I still have concerns about this way to handle the issue. See the follow
> up discussion in other thread (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/6/23/135).
>
> Anyway I think that we do not have many other options to handle this.
> Either we unlock, charge, lock&restes or we preallocate, fault in
>
I agree.
> Or am I missing some other ways how to do it? What do others think about
> these approaches?
>
Yes, I'd like to hear other mm specialists' suggestion. and I'll think
other way, again.
Anyway, memory reclaim with holding a lock_page() can cause big latency
or starvation especially when memcg is used. It's better to avoid it.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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