From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [-mm PATCH 6/8] Memory controller add per container LRU and reclaim (v2) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:22:12 -0700" <20070706052212.11677.26502.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> References: <20070706052212.11677.26502.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20070710084153.C07D91BF6B5@siro.lan> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:41:53 +0900 (JST) From: yamamoto@valinux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, xemul@openvz.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, menage@google.com List-ID: > Add the meta_page to the per container LRU. The reclaim algorithm has been > modified to make the isolate_lru_pages() as a pluggable component. The > scan_control data structure now accepts the container on behalf of which > reclaims are carried out. try_to_free_pages() has been extended to become > container aware. > > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh it seems that the number of pages to scan (nr_active/nr_inactive in shrink_zone) is calculated from NR_ACTIVE and NR_INACTIVE of the zone, even in the case of per-container reclaim. is it intended? YAMAMOTO Takashi -- 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