From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:50:05 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] page reclaim throttle take2 Message-Id: <20080227095005.4058e109.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <1204060718.6242.333.camel@lappy> References: <20080226104647.FF26.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <1204060718.6242.333.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Balbir Singh , Rik van Riel , Lee Schermerhorn , Nick Piggin List-ID: On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:18:38 +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > +out: > > + atomic_dec(&zone->nr_reclaimers); > > + wake_up_all(&zone->reclaim_throttle_waitq); > > + > > + return ret; > > +} > > Would it be possible - and worthwhile - to make this FIFO fair? > I think it doesn't make sense for fairness. IMHO, this functionality is an unfair one in nature. While someone is reclaiming pages, other processes can get a newly reclaimed page without calling try_to_free_page. For high-priority processes, 1. avoiding diving into try_to_free_pages if it's congested. 2. just waiting for that someone relcaim pages and grab it ASAP maybe good for quick work. Thanks, -Kame -- 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