[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFPAmTRHFOT+tc=J-=jTBpvi8ksnp6H32UsEwptrrv=hagjUsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:21:12 +0530
From: "kautuk.c @samsung.com" <consul.kautuk@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Why isn't shrink_slab more zone oriented ?
Hi,
I was going through the do_try_to_free_pages(), balance_pgdat(),
__zone_reclaim()
functions and I see that shrink_zone and shrink_slab are called for each zone.
But, shrink_slab() doesn't seem to bother about the zone from where it
is freeing
memory.
My questions are:
- Will this be a strain on the direct/indirect reclamation algorithm ?
The loops involved expects to free something from that particular zone.
shrink_slab might take more time than is required to free up pages from that
particular zone which might not be optimal.
Am I right about this conclusion ?
- If the above is correct, then is there any work happening on this
front, i.e., to
make shrink_slab functionality and the shrinker callbacks more zone-centric ?
Are there any patches that I could look at or download from
somewhere for this ?
- Are there any other considerations to be careful of for making
shrink_slab more
zone centric ? Can there be other side effects that affects
performance if the
shrink_slab and shrinker callbacks are made to free pages only from
a particular
zone ?
Thanks,
Kautuk.
--
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