From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:14:56 -0400 From: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: throttling dirtiers Message-ID: <20020731171456.S10270@redhat.com> References: <3D479F21.F08C406C@zip.com.au> <20020731200612.GJ29537@holomorphy.com> <20020731162357.Q10270@redhat.com> <3D48504B.9520455D@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D48504B.9520455D@zip.com.au>; from akpm@zip.com.au on Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:02:03PM -0700 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: William Lee Irwin III , Rik van Riel , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:02:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > But let's back off a bit. The problem is that a process > doing a large write() can penalise innocent processes which > want to allocate memory. > > How to fix that? First off, make it obvious where we block in the allocation path (pawning off all memory reaping to kswapd et al is an easy first step here). Then make allocators cycle through on a FIFO basis by using something like the page reservation patch I came up with a while ago. That'll give us an easy place to change scheduling behaviour. -ben -- "You will be reincarnated as a toad; and you will be much happier." -- 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/