On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 4:26 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki < kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:59:26 -0700 > Ying Han wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:46 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki < > > kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > From this, I feel I need to use unbound workqueue. BTW, with patches > for > > > current thread pool model, I think starvation problem by dirty pages > > > cannot be seen. > > > Anyway, I'll give a try. > > > > > > > Then do you suggest me to wait for your patch for my next post? > > > > I used most of weekend for background reclaim on workqueue and I changed > many > things based on your patch (but dropped most of kswapd > descriptor...patches.) > > Thank you for the heads up. Although I am still having concerns on the workqueue approach, but thank you for your time to give a try. One of my concerns is still the debug-ability and I am not being convinced the resource consumption is a killing issue for the per-memcg kswapd thread. Anyway, looking to see your change. --Ying > I'll post it today after some tests on machines in my office. It worked > well > on my laptop. > > Thanks, > -Kame > >