From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:55:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC 5/7] Laundry handling for direct reclaim In-Reply-To: <20070821150650.GL11329@skynet.ie> Message-ID: References: <20070820215040.937296148@sgi.com> <20070820215316.994224842@sgi.com> <20070821150650.GL11329@skynet.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mel Gorman Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dkegel@google.com, Peter Zijlstra , David Miller , Nick Piggin List-ID: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Mel Gorman wrote: > > @@ -1156,6 +1156,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z > > .swappiness = vm_swappiness, > > .order = order, > > }; > > + LIST_HEAD(laundry); > > Why is the laundry not made part of the scan_control? That is one possibility. The other is to treat laundry as a lru type list under zone->lru_lock. This would allow the writeback process (whichever that is) to be independent of the producer of the laundry. Dirty pages could be isolated from an atomic context. -- 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