From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d17so973862and.105 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <28c262360806252137j78a90480n6c3973cd489c1ef2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:37:29 +0900 From: "MinChan Kim" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] prevent incorrect oom under split_lru In-Reply-To: <4862F5BB.9030200@ah.jp.nec.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080624092824.4f0440ca@bree.surriel.com> <28c262360806242259k3ac308c4n7cee29b72456e95b@mail.gmail.com> <20080625150141.D845.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <28c262360806242356n3f7e02abwfee1f6acf0fd2c61@mail.gmail.com> <1214395885.15232.17.camel@twins> <28c262360806250605le31ba48ma8bb16f996783142@mail.gmail.com> <4862F5BB.9030200@ah.jp.nec.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Takenori Nagano Cc: Peter Zijlstra , KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , linux-mm , LKML , Lee Schermerhorn , akpm@linux-foundation.org List-ID: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Takenori Nagano wrote: > MinChan Kim wrote: >> Hi peter, >> >> I agree with you. but if application's virtual address space is big, >> we have a hard problem with mlockall since memory pressure might be a >> big. >> Of course, It will be a RT application design problem. >> >>> The much more important case is desktop usage - that is where we run non >>> real-time code, but do expect 'low' latency due to user-interaction. >>> >>> >From hitting swap on my 512M laptop (rather frequent occurance) I know >>> we can do better here,.. >>> >> >> Absolutely. It is another example. So, I suggest following patch. >> It's based on idea of Takenori Nagano's memory reclaim more efficiently. > > Hi Kim-san, > > Thank you for agreeing with me. > > I have one question. > My patch don't mind priority. Why do you need "priority == 0"? Hi, Takenori-san. Now, Kosaiki-san's patch didn't consider application latency. That patch scan all lru[x] pages when memory pressure is very high. (ie, priority == 0) It will cause application latency to high as peter and me notice that. We need a idea which prevent big scanning overhead I modified your idea to prevent big scanning overhead only when memory pressure is very big. > Thanks, > Takenori > -- Kinds regards, MinChan Kim -- 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