From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DEB9B6B005A for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n5HA6mv4013943 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:06:48 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F62845DE7B for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:06:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD43C45DE6E for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:06:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96AE6E08009 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:06:47 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465ECE08003 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:06:47 +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: References: <20090616134423.GD14241@csn.ul.ie> Message-Id: <20090617190204.99C6.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:06:46 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Mel Gorman , 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 Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > I don't have a particular workload in mind to be perfectly honest. I'm just not > > convinced of the wisdom of trying to unmap pages by default in zone_reclaim() > > just because the NUMA distances happen to be large. > > zone reclaim = 1 is supposed to be light weight with minimal impact. The > intend was just to remove potentially unused pagecache pages so that node > local allocations can succeed again. So lets not unmap pages. hm, At least major two zone reclaim developer disagree my patch. Thus I have to agree with you, because I really don't hope to ignore other developer's opnion. So, as far as I understand, the conclusion of this thread are - Drop my patch - instead, implement improvement patch of (may_unmap && page_mapped()) case - the documentation should be changed - it's my homework(?) Can you agree 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