From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:20:27 +0100 (IST) From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] Mark page cache pages as __GFP_PAGECACHE instead of __GFP_MOVABLE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20070515150311.16348.56826.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> <20070515150552.16348.15975.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie> <20070515195206.GA14028@skynet.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Linux Memory Management List List-ID: On Tue, 15 May 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2007, Mel Gorman wrote: > >> Currently page cache pages are grouped with MOVABLE allocations. This appears >> to work well in practice as page cache pages are usually reclaimable via >> the LRU. However, this is not strictly correct as page cache pages can only >> be cleaned and discarded, not migrated. During readahead, pages may also >> exist on a pool for a period of time instead of on the LRU giving them a >> differnet lifecycle to ordinary movable pages. > > Sorry but pagecache pages can be migrated. > Poor phrasing prehaps. I was under the impression that page migration was only concerned with pages mapped by process page tables for the move_pages() call. The statement above was also referring to pages read by readahead and normal file IO. I'm pretty sure they could be migrated without difficulty though once the source pages are identified. Either way, the separate grouping of page cache is probably not worthwhile for the moment. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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