[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1110231419070.17218@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Satoru Moriya <smoriya@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"lwoodman@...hat.com" <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Seiji Aguchi <saguchi@...hat.com>,
"hughd@...gle.com" <hughd@...gle.com>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH -v2 -mm] add extra free kbytes tunable
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Satoru Moriya wrote:
> We do.
> Basically we need this kind of feature for almost all our latency
> sensitive applications to avoid latency issue in memory allocation.
>
These are all realtime?
> Currently we run those applications on custom kernels which this
> kind of patch is applied to. But it is hard for us to support every
> kernel version for it. Also there are several customers who can't
> accept a custom kernel and so they must use other commercial Unix.
> If this feature is accepted, they will definitely use it on their
> systems.
>
That's precisely the problem, it's behavior is going to vary widely from
version to version as the implementation changes for reclaim and
compaction. I think we can do much better with the priority of kswapd and
reclaiming above the high watermark for threads that need a surplus of
extra memory because they are realtime, two things we can easily do.
--
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