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 ESMTP id 5DEFB8D0039 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:08:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3542E3EE0B5 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:08:41 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1715545DE55 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:08:41 +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 F3BAC45DE4D for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:08:40 +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 E09211DB802C for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:08:40 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.147]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD5051DB8038 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:08:40 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: check zone->all_unreclaimable in all_unreclaimable() In-Reply-To: <20110309145457.0400.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <4D767D43.5020802@gmail.com> <20110309145457.0400.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20110310224939.F926.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:08:39 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: avagin@gmail.com, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andrew Morton , Minchan Kim , Andrey Vagin , Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Hi, > > Hmmm... > If I could observed your patch, I did support your opinion. but I didn't. so, now I'm > curious why we got the different conclusion. tommorow, I'll try to construct a test > environment to reproduce your system. Hm, following two patches seems to have bad interaction. former makes SCHED_FIFO when OOM, latter makes CPU 100% occupied busy loop if LRU is really tight. Of cource, I need to run more much test. I'll digg it more at this weekend (maybe). commit 93b43fa55088fe977503a156d1097cc2055449a2 Author: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves Date: Mon Aug 9 17:19:41 2010 -0700 oom: give the dying task a higher priority commit 0e093d99763eb4cea09f8ca4f1d01f34e121d10b Author: Mel Gorman Date: Tue Oct 26 14:21:45 2010 -0700 writeback: do not sleep on the congestion queue if there are no congested BDIs or if significant conge -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org