From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C10DB6B0012 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 19:55:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA2A3EE0C5 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 08:54:58 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B652AEB41 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 08:54:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B1D2E68FE for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 08:54:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC98EF8004 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 08:54:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.146]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BFFEF8001 for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 08:54:57 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <4DD45C39.5030803@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 08:54:33 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: vmscan: If kswapd has been running too long, allow it to sleep References: <1305295404-12129-5-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <4DCFAA80.7040109@jp.fujitsu.com> <1305519711.4806.7.camel@mulgrave.site> <20110516084558.GE5279@suse.de> <20110516102753.GF5279@suse.de> <4DD31B6E.8040502@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110518095859.GR5279@suse.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: minchan.kim@gmail.com Cc: mgorman@suse.de, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, colin.king@canonical.com, raghu.prabhu13@gmail.com, jack@suse.cz, chris.mason@oracle.com, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org >> I've already submitted a pair of patches for option 1. I don't think >> option 2 gains us anything. I think it's more likely we should worry >> about all_unreclaimable being set when shrink_slab is returning 0 and we >> are encountering so many dirty pages that pages_scanned is high enough. > > Okay. > > Colin reported he had no problem with patch 1 in this series and > mine(ie, just cond_resched right after balance_pgdat call without no > patch of shrink_slab). > > If Colin's test is successful, I don't insist on mine. > (I don't want to drag on for days :( ) > If KOSAKI agree, let's ask the test to Colin and confirm our last test. > > KOSAKI. Could you post a your opinion? Yeah. I also don't have any motivation to ignore Colin's test result. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org