[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110818062722.GB23056@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:27:22 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] memcg: stop vmscan when enough done.
On Thu 18-08-11 08:52:33, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:35:50 +0200
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> > On Wed 17-08-11 09:54:05, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:50:55 +0200
> > > > - mem_cgroup_force_empty asks for reclaiming all pages. I guess it should be
> > > > OK but will have to think about it some more.
> > >
> > > force_empty/rmdir() is allowed to be stopped by Ctrl-C. I think passing res->usage
> > > is overkilling.
> >
> > So, how many pages should be reclaimed then?
> >
>
> How about (1 << (MAX_ORDER-1))/loop ?
Hmm, I am not sure I see any benefit. We want to reclaim all those
pages why shouldn't we do it in one batch? If we use a value based on
MAX_ORDER then we make a bigger chance that force_empty fails for big
cgroups (e.g. with a lot of page cache).
Anyway, if we want to mimic the previous behavior then we should use
something like nr_nodes * SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX (the above value would be
sufficient for up to 32 nodes).
>
> Thanks,
> -Kame
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
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