Messages in this thread | | | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix malloc() stall in zone_reclaim() and bring behaviour more in line with expectations V3 | Date | Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:08:47 +0900 (JST) |
| |
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:01:41AM -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > May I ask your worry? > > > > > > > > > > Simply that I believe the intention of PF_SWAPWRITE here was to allow > > > zone_reclaim() to aggressively reclaim memory if the reclaim_mode allowed > > > it as it was a statement that off-node accesses are really not desired. > > > > Right. > > > > > Ok. I am not fully convinced but I'll not block it either if believe it's > > > necessary. My current understanding is that this patch only makes a difference > > > if the server is IO congested in which case the system is struggling anyway > > > and an off-node access is going to be relatively small penalty overall. > > > Conceivably, having PF_SWAPWRITE set makes things worse in that situation > > > and the patch makes some sense. > > > > We could drop support for RECLAIM_SWAP if that simplifies things. > > > > I don't think that is necessary. While I expect it's very rarely used, I > imagine a situation where it would be desirable on a system that had large > amounts of tmpfs pages but where it wasn't critical they remain in-memory. > > Removing PF_SWAPWRITE would make it less aggressive and if you were > happy with that, then that would be good enough for me.
I surprised this a bit. I've imazined Christoph never agree to remove it. Currently, trouble hitting user of mine don't use this feature. Thus, if it can be removed, I don't need to worry abusing this again and I'm happy.
Mel, Have you seen actual user of this?
| |