From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:43:15 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [patch -mm 4/5] mm: test and set zone reclaim lock before starting reclaim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <46F88DFB.3020307@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <46F8A7FE.7000907@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Balbir Singh , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > > One thing that has been changed in -mm with regard to my last patchset is > > > > > that kswapd and try_to_free_pages() are allowed to call shrink_zone() > > > > > concurrently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aah.. interesting. Could you define concurrently more precisely, > > > > concurrently as in the same zone or for different zones concurrently? > > > > > > There was no change. They were allowed to call shrink_zone concurrently > > > before. > > > > > > > Yes, there was. Before the patchset, zone reclaim would not be able to > > call shrink_zone() on a zone that it is already being invoked for, > > regardless of where it was previous invoked from. Now it is. > > Right. I just wanted to make sure of this. The statement above > seems to indicate that there was a change to the concurrency of kswapd > and try_to_free_pages with one another. > Ah, I see, I was trying to say that zone reclaim can now be called concurrently with kswapd and try_to_free_pages() in shrink_zone(). Thanks for pointing that out, it was poorly worded. -- 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