[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11868371.O9o76ZdvQC@natalenko.name>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 23:32:12 +0100
From: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com
Cc: amit@...nel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, corbet@....net,
david@...hat.com, dwmw@...zon.com, elver@...gle.com,
foersleo@...zon.de, gthelen@...gle.com, markubo@...zon.de,
rientjes@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org,
linux-damon@...zon.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] Introduce DAMON-based Proactive Reclamation
Hello.
On úterý 19. října 2021 17:07:16 CET SeongJae Park wrote:
> In short, DAMON_RECLAIM with 50ms/s time quota and regions prioritization on
> v5.15-rc5 Linux kernel with ZRAM swap device achieves 38.58% memory saving
> with only 1.94% runtime overhead. For this, DAMON_RECLAIM consumes only
> 4.97% of single CPU time.
While it really consumes little CPU time, is it fine for `kdamond.0` to be in a
D (uninterruptible sleep) state all the time while active, pushing loadavg
over 1.0?
Thanks.
--
Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists