[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120227085438.06f8673e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:54:38 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/21] mm: lru_lock splitting
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 09:31:01 +0400
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org> wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:51:36 +0400
> > Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@...nvz.org> wrote:
> >
> >> v3 changes:
> >> * inactive-ratio reworked again, now it always calculated from from scratch
> >> * hierarchical pte reference bits filter in memory-cgroup reclaimer
> >> * fixed two bugs in locking, found by Hugh Dickins
> >> * locking functions slightly simplified
> >> * new patch for isolated pages accounting
> >> * new patch with lru interleaving
> >>
> >> This patchset is based on next-20120210
> >>
> >> git: https://github.com/koct9i/linux/commits/lruvec-v3
> >>
> >
> > I wonder.... I just wonder...if we can split a lruvec in a zone into small
> > pieces of lruvec and have splitted LRU-lock per them, do we need per-memcg-lrulock ?
>
> What per-memcg-lrulock? I don't have it.
> last patch splits lruvecs in memcg with the same factor.
>
Okay, I missed 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