From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: Comment on patch to remove nr_async_pages limit References: Reply-To: zlatko.calusic@iskon.hr From: Zlatko Calusic Date: 05 Jun 2001 17:57:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Mike Galbraith's message of "Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:38:08 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: <873d9ezzpi.fsf@atlas.iskon.hr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , lkml , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Mike Galbraith writes: > On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > Zlatko, > > > > I've read your patch to remove nr_async_pages limit while reading an > > archive on the web. (I have to figure out why lkml is not being delivered > > correctly to me...) > > > > Quoting your message: > > > > "That artificial limit hurts both swap out and swap in path as it > > introduces synchronization points (and/or weakens swapin readahead), > > which I think are not necessary." > > > > If we are under low memory, we cannot simply writeout a whole bunch of > > swap data. Remember the writeout operations will potentially allocate > > buffer_head's for the swapcache pages before doing real IO, which takes > > _more memory_: OOM deadlock. > > What's the point of creating swapcache pages, and then avoiding doing > the IO until it becomes _dangerous_ to do so? That's what we're doing > right now. This is a problem because we guarantee it will become one. > We guarantee that the pagecache will become almost pure swapcache by > delaying the writeout so long that everything else is consumed. > Huh, this looks just like my argument, just put in different words. I should have read this sooner. :) -- Zlatko -- 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/