From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx135.postini.com [74.125.245.135]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C78B26B0031 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:09:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id x12so517784wgg.10 for ; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 20:08:59 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [patch v4] Soft limit rework Message-ID: <20130604180859.GB9321@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1370254735-13012-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <20130604163828.GA9321@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Balbir Singh Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm , "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ying Han , Hugh Dickins , Glauber Costa , Michel Lespinasse , Greg Thelen , Tejun Heo On Tue 04-06-13 23:27:05, Balbir Singh wrote: > > OK, let me summarize. The primary intention is to get rid of the current > > soft reclaim infrastructure which basically bypasses the standard > > reclaim and tight it directly into shrink_zone code. This also means > > that the soft reclaim doesn't reclaim at priority 0 and that it is > > active also for the targeted (aka limit) reclaim. > > > > Does this help? > > > > Yes. What are the limitations of no-priority 0 reclaim? I am not sure I understand the question. What do you mean by limitations? The priority-0 scan was always a crude hack. With a lot of pages in on the LRU it might cause huge big stalls during direct reclaim. There are workloads which benefited from such an aggressive reclaim - e.g. streaming IO but that doesn't justify this kind of reclaim. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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