![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Hi balbir-san > >> It's good to keep the main reclaim code and the memory controller reclaim in >> sync, so this is a nice effort. > > thank you. > I will repost next version (fixed nick's opinion) while a few days. > >> > @@ -1456,7 +1501,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pag >> > int target_zone = gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE); >> > >> > zones = NODE_DATA(numa_node_id())->node_zonelists[target_zone].zones; >> > - if (do_try_to_free_pages(zones, sc.gfp_mask, &sc)) >> > + if (try_to_free_pages_throttled(zones, 0, sc.gfp_mask, &sc)) >> > return 1; >> > return 0; >> > } >> >> try_to_free_pages_throttled checks for zone_watermark_ok(), that will not work >> in the case that we are reclaiming from a cgroup which over it's limit. We need >> a different check, to see if the mem_cgroup is still over it's limit or not. > > That makes sense. > > unfortunately, I don't know mem-cgroup so much. > What do i use function, instead? One option could be that once the memory controller has this feature, we'll need no changes in try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL -- 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-02-21 12:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||