Re: [RFC] Remove temp_priority

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Martin Bligh wrote:
> This is not tested yet. What do you think?
> 
> This patch removes temp_priority, as it is racy. We're setting
> prev_priority from it, and yet temp_priority could have been
> set back to DEF_PRIORITY by another reclaimer.

I like it. I wonder if we should get kswapd to stick its priority
into the zone at the point where zone_watermark_ok becomes true,
rather than setting all zones to the lowest priority? That would
require a bit more logic though I guess.

For that matter (going off the topic a bit), I wonder if
try_to_free_pages should have a watermark check there too? This
might help reduce the latency issue you brought up where one process
has reclaimed a lot of pages, but another isn't making any progress
and has to go through the full priority range? Maybe that's
statistically pretty unlikely?

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>