Re: [rfc] lru_add_drain_all() vs isolation

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

> The usefulness of a scheme like this requires:
> 
> 1. There are cpus that continually execute user space code
>    without system interaction.
> 
> 2. There are repeated VM activities that require page isolation /
>    migration.
> 
> The first page isolation activity will then clear the lru caches of the
> processes doing number crunching in user space (and therefore the first
> isolation will still interrupt). The second and following isolation will
> then no longer interrupt the processes.
> 
> 2. is rare. So the question is if the additional code in the LRU handling
> can be justified. If lru handling is not time sensitive then yes.

Christoph, I'd like to discuss a bit related (and almost unrelated) thing.
I think page migration don't need lru_add_drain_all() as synchronous, because
page migration have 10 times retry.

Then asynchronous lru_add_drain_all() cause

  - if system isn't under heavy pressure, retry succussfull.
  - if system is under heavy pressure or RT-thread work busy busy loop, retry failure.

I don't think this is problematic bahavior. Also, mlock can use asynchrounous lru drain.

What do you think?


--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>