From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:13:24 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Get rid of scan_control Message-Id: <20060211131324.63d49cff.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20060211045355.GA3318@dmt.cnet> <20060211013255.20832152.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > But refill_inactive_list() is not used for swapping only. All evicted > > > pages go through that path - it can be _very_ hot. > > > > A bit hot. I guess it's worth fixing. > > There is another issue of the anon_vma lock getting very hot during > zone_reclaim() because refill_inactive_list calls page_referenced(). So > does shrink_list(). zone_reclaim is only interested in unmapped pages and > thus checking for references is useless. > > > scan_control was modelled on writeback_control. But writeback_control > > works, and scan_control doesn't. I think this is because a) > > writeback_control instances are always initialised at the declaration site > > and b) writeback_control is just a lot simpler. > > The zoned counter patchset eliminates at least the wbs structure. Does that refer to writeback_state? > Patch to fix the calling of page_referenced() follows. This is against > 2.6.16-rc2. We probably need another patch for current mm. In the case > of VMSCAN_MAY_SWAP not set, we may just want to bypass the whole > calculation thing for reclaim_mapped. > What's VMSCAN_MAY_SWAP? -- 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