[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130626123925.6a15ce3874fa4b0cc8390a0a@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:39:25 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Zlatko Calusic <zcalusic@...sync.net>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
dormando <dormando@...ia.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Linux-FSDevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: vmscan: Avoid direct reclaim scanning at
maximum priority
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:39:23 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> Page reclaim at priority 0 will scan the entire LRU as priority 0 is
> considered to be a near OOM condition. Direct reclaim can reach this
> priority while still making reclaim progress. This patch avoids
> reclaiming at priority 0 unless no reclaim progress was made and
> the page allocator would consider firing the OOM killer. The
> user-visible impact is that direct reclaim will not easily reach
> priority 0 and start swapping prematurely.
That's a bandaid.
Priority 0 should be a pretty darn rare condition. How often is it
occurring, and do you know why?
--
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