From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx192.postini.com [74.125.245.192]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B6106B0031 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:57:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id ia10so423853vcb.14 for ; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:57:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130604163828.GA9321@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1370254735-13012-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> <20130604163828.GA9321@dhcp22.suse.cz> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 23:27:05 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch v4] Soft limit rework From: Balbir Singh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , linux-mm , "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ying Han , Hugh Dickins , Glauber Costa , Michel Lespinasse , Greg Thelen , Tejun Heo > OK, let me summarize. The primary intention is to get rid of the current > soft reclaim infrastructure which basically bypasses the standard > reclaim and tight it directly into shrink_zone code. This also means > that the soft reclaim doesn't reclaim at priority 0 and that it is > active also for the targeted (aka limit) reclaim. > > Does this help? > Yes. What are the limitations of no-priority 0 reclaim? I'll also look at the patches Thanks, Balbir Singh. -- 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