From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qg0-f71.google.com (mail-qg0-f71.google.com [209.85.192.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D936B0005 for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 17:01:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qg0-f71.google.com with SMTP id k63so382019936qgf.2 for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 14:01:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-x22c.google.com (mail-yw0-x22c.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z195si12485278ywg.122.2016.05.31.14.01.17 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 May 2016 14:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id c127so201788278ywb.1 for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 14:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 17:01:16 -0400 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/swap: lru drain on memory reclaim workqueue Message-ID: <20160531210116.GA14868@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1464727815-13073-1-git-send-email-keith.busch@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1464727815-13073-1-git-send-email-keith.busch@intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Keith Busch Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 02:50:15PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > + system_mem_wq = alloc_workqueue("events_mem_unbound", WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, So, WQ_MEM_RECLAIM on a shared workqueue doesn't make much sense. That flag guarantees single concurrency level to the workqueue. How would multiple users of a shared workqueue coordinate around that? What prevents one events_mem_unbound user from depending on, say, draining lru? If lru draining requires a rescuer to guarantee forward progress under memory pressure, that rescuer worker must be dedicated for that purpose and can't be shared. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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