From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F39F26B004D for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:11:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.76]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id nA2NBVWb001766 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:11:31 +0900 Received: from smail (m6 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DA6345DE50 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:11:31 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB6145DE4E for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:11:30 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B5D1DB8040 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:11:30 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml12.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml12.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.102]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE231DB803E for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:11:30 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <244dc9813cd8dbb5e1ce1eafa61e9e2b.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20091102162244.9425e49b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091102162617.9d07e05f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:11:29 +0900 (JST) Subject: Re: [RFC][-mm][PATCH 3/6] oom-killer: count lowmem rss From: "KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" , aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, minchan.kim@gmail.com, rientjes@google.com, vedran.furac@gmail.com, "hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk" List-ID: Christoph Lameter wrote: > > I dont think this patch will work in !NUMA but its useful there too. Can > you make this work in general? > for NUMA == +static inline int is_lowmem_page(struct page *page) +{ + if (unlikely(page_zonenum(page) < policy_zone)) + return 1; + return 0; +} == is used. Doesn't this work well ? This check means It enough memory: On my ia64 box ZONE_DMA(<4G), x86-64 box(GFP_DMA32) is caught If small memory (typically < 4G) ia64 box no lowmem, x86-64 box GPF_DMA is caught If all zones are policy zone (ppc) no lowmem zone. Because "amount of memory" changes the situation "which is lowmem?", I used policy zone. If this usage is not appropriate, I'll add some new. BTW, is it better to export this value from somewhere ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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