From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <45363E66.8010201@google.com> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:47:02 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove temp_priority References: <45351423.70804@google.com> <4535160E.2010908@yahoo.com.au> <45351877.9030107@google.com> <45362130.6020804@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <45362130.6020804@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , Linux Memory Management , Nick Piggin List-ID: > Coming from another angle, I am thinking about doing away with direct > reclaim completely. That means we don't need any GFP_IO or GFP_FS, and > solves the problem of large numbers of processes stuck in reclaim and > skewing aging and depleting the memory reserve. Last time I proposed that, the objection was how to throttle the heavy dirtiers so they don't fill up RAM with dirty pages? Also, how do you do atomic allocations? Create a huge memory pool and pray really hard? > But that's tricky because we don't have enough kswapds to get maximum > reclaim throughput on many configurations (only single core opterons > and UP systems, really). It's not a question of enough kswapds. It's that we can dirty pages faster than they can possibly be written to disk. dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/foo M. -- 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