From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:44:07 -0500 From: Matt Mackall Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] slob: rework freelist handling Message-ID: <20070524174406.GZ11115@waste.org> References: <20070523195824.GF11115@waste.org> <20070523210612.GI11115@waste.org> <20070523224206.GN11115@waste.org> <20070524061153.GP11115@waste.org> <20070524172251.GX11115@waste.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 10:27:54AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 24 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > That's C) above. But you haven't answered the real question: why > > bother? RECLAIMABLE is a bogus number and the VM treats it as such. We > > can make no judgment on how much memory we can actually reclaim from > > looking at reclaimable - it might very easily all be pinned. > > The memory was allocated from a slab that has SLAB_ACCOUNT_RECLAIM set. It > is the responsibility of the slab allocator to properly account for these. You keep asserting this, but the fact is if I ripped out all the SLAB_ACCOUNT_RECLAIM logic, the kernel would be unaffected. Because RECLAIM IS JUST A HINT. And not a very good one. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -- 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