Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:14:32 +0000 | From | Andy Whitcroft <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] Lumpy Reclaim V3 |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +0000 > Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote: > >> This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set. > > more... > > One concern is that when the code goes to reclaim a lump and fails, we end > up reclaiming a number of pages which we didn't really want to reclaim. > Regardless of the LRU status of those pages. > > I think what we should do here is to add the appropriate vmstat counters > for us to be able to assess the frequency of this occurring, then throw a > spread of workloads at it. If that work indicates that there's a problem > then we should look at being a bit smarter about whether all the pages look > to be reclaimable and if not, restore them all and give up. > > Also, I suspect it would be cleaner and faster to pass the `active' flag > into isolate_lru_pages(), rather than calculating it on the fly. And I > don't think we need to calculate it on every pass through the loop? > > > We really do need those vmstat counters to let us see how effective this > thing is being. Basic success/fail stuff. Per-zone, I guess.
Sounds like a cue ... I'll go do that.
-apw
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |