From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8EDF96B01B2 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 21:39:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o5S1dgJ8001897 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:39:42 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA82045DE6F for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:39:41 +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 C743545DE6E for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:39:41 +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 97D591DB803F for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:39:41 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.107]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5717D1DB803B for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:39:41 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: recalculate lru_pages on each priority In-Reply-To: <20100627113422.GA14504@cmpxchg.org> References: <20100625181221.805A.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20100627113422.GA14504@cmpxchg.org> Message-Id: <20100628103828.3873.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:39:40 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Johannes Weiner Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, LKML , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim List-ID: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:13:20PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > shrink_zones() need relatively long time. and lru_pages can be > > changed dramatically while shrink_zones(). > > then, lru_pages need recalculate on each priority. > > In the direct reclaim path, we bail out of that loop after > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX reclaimed pages, so in this case, decreasing priority > levels actually mean we do _not_ make any progress and the total > number of lru pages should not change (much). The possible distortion > in shrink_slab() is small. Oh, you seems forgot the case when much thread enter try_to_free_pages() concurrently. > > However, for the suspend-to-disk case the reclaim target can be a lot > higher and we inevitably end up at higher priorities even though we > make progress, but fail to increase pressure on the shrinkers as well > without your patch. > > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner -- 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