[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0000013abda6fc7d-6cfbef1e-bc7d-4f4f-bb38-221729e8c9f9-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:26:09 +0000
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Mike Hommey <mh@...ndium.org>, Taras Glek <tglek@...illa.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Support volatile range for anon vma
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Minchan Kim wrote:
> I guess it would improve system performance very well.
> But as I wrote down in description, downside of the patch is that we have to
> age anon lru although we don't have swap. But gain via the patch is bigger than
> loss via aging of anon lru when memory pressure happens. I don't see other downside
> other than it. What do you think about it?
> (I didn't implement anon lru aging in case of no-swap but it's trivial
> once we decide)
I am a bit confused like some of the others as to why this patch is
necessary since we already have DONT_NEED.
--
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