[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130604180859.GB9321@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 20:08:59 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch v4] Soft limit rework
On Tue 04-06-13 23:27:05, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > OK, let me summarize. The primary intention is to get rid of the current
> > soft reclaim infrastructure which basically bypasses the standard
> > reclaim and tight it directly into shrink_zone code. This also means
> > that the soft reclaim doesn't reclaim at priority 0 and that it is
> > active also for the targeted (aka limit) reclaim.
> >
> > Does this help?
> >
>
> Yes. What are the limitations of no-priority 0 reclaim?
I am not sure I understand the question. What do you mean by
limitations?
The priority-0 scan was always a crude hack. With a lot of pages in on
the LRU it might cause huge big stalls during direct reclaim. There are
workloads which benefited from such an aggressive reclaim - e.g.
streaming IO but that doesn't justify this kind of reclaim.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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