From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:35:44 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [patch 11/21] (NEW) more aggressively use lumpy reclaim In-Reply-To: <20080228192928.954667833@redhat.com> References: <20080228192908.126720629@redhat.com> <20080228192928.954667833@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20080302193024.1E72.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lee Schermerhorn , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi I think this patch is very good improvement. but it is not related to split lru. Why don't you separate this patch? IMHO treat as independent patch is better. Thanks. > During an AIM7 run on a 16GB system, fork started failing around > 32000 threads, despite the system having plenty of free swap and > 15GB of pageable memory. > > If normal pageout does not result in contiguous free pages for > kernel stacks, fall back to lumpy reclaim instead of failing fork > or doing excessive pageout IO. > > I do not know whether this change is needed due to the extreme > stress test or because the inactive list is a smaller fraction > of system memory on huge systems. -- 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