From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E7B56B004F for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:08:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n5GC8muh030056 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:08:49 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CB245DE62 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:08:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6496445DE55 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:08:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ABD6E08007 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:08:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94A01DB803F for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:08:47 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix malloc() stall in zone_reclaim() and bring behaviour more in line with expectations V3 In-Reply-To: <20090615152543.GF23198@csn.ul.ie> References: <20090615152543.GF23198@csn.ul.ie> Message-Id: <20090616202210.99B2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:08:47 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter , Andrew Morton , riel@redhat.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, linuxram@us.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner List-ID: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:01:41AM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > May I ask your worry? > > > > > > > > > > Simply that I believe the intention of PF_SWAPWRITE here was to allow > > > zone_reclaim() to aggressively reclaim memory if the reclaim_mode allowed > > > it as it was a statement that off-node accesses are really not desired. > > > > Right. > > > > > Ok. I am not fully convinced but I'll not block it either if believe it's > > > necessary. My current understanding is that this patch only makes a difference > > > if the server is IO congested in which case the system is struggling anyway > > > and an off-node access is going to be relatively small penalty overall. > > > Conceivably, having PF_SWAPWRITE set makes things worse in that situation > > > and the patch makes some sense. > > > > We could drop support for RECLAIM_SWAP if that simplifies things. > > > > I don't think that is necessary. While I expect it's very rarely used, I > imagine a situation where it would be desirable on a system that had large > amounts of tmpfs pages but where it wasn't critical they remain in-memory. > > Removing PF_SWAPWRITE would make it less aggressive and if you were > happy with that, then that would be good enough for me. I surprised this a bit. I've imazined Christoph never agree to remove it. Currently, trouble hitting user of mine don't use this feature. Thus, if it can be removed, I don't need to worry abusing this again and I'm happy. Mel, Have you seen actual user of this? -- 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