From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx143.postini.com [74.125.245.143]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A46CF6B0074 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:26:09 +0000 From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC] Support volatile range for anon vma In-Reply-To: <20121026005851.GD15767@bbox> Message-ID: <0000013abda6fc7d-6cfbef1e-bc7d-4f4f-bb38-221729e8c9f9-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <1351133820-14096-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org> <0000013a9881a86c-c0fb5823-b6e7-4bea-8707-f6b8eddae14d-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20121026005851.GD15767@bbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Minchan Kim Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Stultz , Andrew Morton , Android Kernel Team , Robert Love , Mel Gorman , Hugh Dickins , Dave Hansen , Rik van Riel , Dave Chinner , Neil Brown , Mike Hommey , Taras Glek , KOSAKI Motohiro , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org