Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:37:13 +0900 | | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/8][for -mm] mem_notify v6: memory_pressure_notify() caller |
| |
Hi Andrew
> > and, It is judged out of trouble at the fllowing situations. > > o memory pressure decrease and stop moves an anonymous page to the > > inactive list. > > o free pages increase than (pages_high+lowmem_reserve)*2. > > This seems rather arbitrary. Why choose this stage in the page > reclaimation process rather than some other stage? > > If this feature is useful then I'd expect that some applications would want > notification at different times, or at different levels of VM distress. So > this semi-randomly-chosen notification point just won't be strong enough in > real-world use.
Hmmm actually, This portion become code broat through some bug reports.
Yes, I think it again and implement it more simplefy. Thanks!
> Does this change work correctly and appropriately for processes which are > running in a cgroup memory controller?
nice point out.
to be honest, I don't think at mem-cgroup until now. I will implement it at next post.
> Given the amount of code which these patches add, and the subsequent > maintenance burden, and the unlikelihood of getting many applications to > actually _use_ the interface, it is not obvious to me that inclusion in the > kernel is justifiable, sorry.
OK. I'll implement it again more simplefy. Thanks.
> memory_pressure_notify() is far too large to be inlined.
OK. I will fix it.
> Some of the patches were wordwrapped.
Agghh.. I will don't use gmail at next post. sorry.
and, I hope merge only poll_wait_exclusive() and wake_up_locked_nr() if you don't mind.
this 2 portion anybody noclaim about 2 month. and I think it is useful function by many people.
|  |