lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:46:06 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 02/11] mm: vmscan: distinguish global reclaim from global
 LRU scanning

On Mon 19-09-11 15:23:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 12-09-11 12:57:19, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > The traditional zone reclaim code is scanning the per-zone LRU lists
> > during direct reclaim and kswapd, and the per-zone per-memory cgroup
> > LRU lists when reclaiming on behalf of a memory cgroup limit.
> > 
> > Subsequent patches will convert the traditional reclaim code to
> > reclaim exclusively from the per-memory cgroup LRU lists.  As a
> > result, using the predicate for which LRU list is scanned will no
> > longer be appropriate to tell global reclaim from limit reclaim.
> > 
> > This patch adds a global_reclaim() predicate to tell direct/kswapd
> > reclaim from memory cgroup limit reclaim and substitutes it in all
> > places where currently scanning_global_lru() is used for that.
> 
> I am wondering about vmscan_swappiness. Shouldn't it use global_reclaim
> instead?

Ahh, it looks like the next patch does that. Wouldn't it make more sense
to have that change here? I see that this makes the patch smaller but...
-- 
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ