From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 19:53:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: kswapd @ 60-80% CPU during heavy HD i/o. In-Reply-To: <852568D3.005FC088.00@D51MTA07.pok.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: frankeh@us.ibm.com Cc: riel@nl.linux.org, Roger Larsson , linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 2 May 2000 frankeh@us.ibm.com wrote: >The smart things that I see has to happen is to allow a set of processes to >be attached to a set of memory pools and the OS basically enforcing >allocation in those constraints. I brought this up before and I think >Andrea proposed something similar. Allocation should take place in those Yes, that's why I think we need to be able to know the state of the cache in a single pg_data_t. If 99% of the pg_data_t is _freeable_ cache it worth to shrink a bit from the cache of _such_ pg_data_t instead of risking shrinking and then allocating the memory from a foregin pg_data_t because we respect a global LRU). This can't hurt at all the common non NUMA case since in the common case of 99% of IA32 boxes out there we have _one_ only pg_data_t thus the lru keeps to be effectively system-global for them. Andrea -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/