From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3D48568F.B7A006A7@zip.com.au> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:28:47 -0700 From: Andrew Morton MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: throttling dirtiers References: <3D479F21.F08C406C@zip.com.au> <20020731200612.GJ29537@holomorphy.com> <20020731162357.Q10270@redhat.com> <3D48504B.9520455D@zip.com.au> <20020731171456.S10270@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: William Lee Irwin III , Rik van Riel , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:02:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > But let's back off a bit. The problem is that a process > > doing a large write() can penalise innocent processes which > > want to allocate memory. > > > > How to fix that? > > First off, make it obvious where we block in the allocation path (pawning > off all memory reaping to kswapd et al is an easy first step here). Then > make allocators cycle through on a FIFO basis by using something like the > page reservation patch I came up with a while ago. That'll give us an > easy place to change scheduling behaviour. None of that will preferentially throttle the source of dirty pages, which seems a good thing to do? -- 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/