From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] vmscan: give referenced, active and unmapped pages a second trip around the LRU From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <20070525010112.2c5754ac.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <200705242357.l4ONvw49006681@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <1180076565.7348.14.camel@twins> <20070525001812.9dfc972e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1180077810.7348.20.camel@twins> <20070525002829.19deb888.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1180078590.7348.27.camel@twins> <20070525004808.84ae5cf3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1180079479.7348.33.camel@twins> <20070525010112.2c5754ac.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 10:35:24 +0200 Message-Id: <1180082124.7348.55.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, mbligh@mbligh.org, riel@redhat.com List-ID: On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 01:01 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2007 09:51:19 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra > > But why? It might make the VM suck. Or swap more. Or go oom. > > I don't know how to justify merging this. /me a tad confused here - what patch are we discussing? The ACK was for your initial patch. As for my patch - yes I understand that that would be difficult, but sometimes you seem to just toss things in to see how they work out (one can always hope, right :-) As for the rationale: not clearing the referenced state when we do give the page another go on the active list, means it will get yet another one when we finally do check it (and reclaim_mapped is deemed ok). Not doing it basically gives all those pages another go after reclaim_mapped is set. I realise this is not backed up by evidence of actual tests,.. :-( -- 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