[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120321002843.GA14584@barrios>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:28:43 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: forbid lumpy-reclaim in shrink_active_list()
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 01:18:21PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> This patch reset reclaim mode in shrink_active_list() to RECLAIM_MODE_SINGLE | RECLAIM_MODE_ASYNC.
> (sync/async sign is used only in shrink_page_list and does not affect shrink_active_list)
>
> Currenly shrink_active_list() sometimes works in lumpy-reclaim mode,
> if RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM left over from earlier shrink_inactive_list().
> Meanwhile, in age_active_anon() sc->reclaim_mode is totally zero.
> So, current behavior is too complex and confusing, all this looks like bug.
>
> In general, shrink_active_list() populate inactive list for next shrink_inactive_list().
> Lumpy shring_inactive_list() isolate pages around choosen one from both active and
> inactive lists. So, there no reasons for lumpy-isolation in shrink_active_list()
>
> Proposed-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/15/583
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
--
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