lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] Refactor zone_reclaim
    On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:52:18 +0530
    Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

    > * Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2010-12-01 10:16:34]:
    >
    > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-12-01 10:23:29]:
    > >
    > > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:45:55 +0530
    > > > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Refactor zone_reclaim, move reusable functionality outside
    > > > > of zone_reclaim. Make zone_reclaim_unmapped_pages modular
    > > > >
    > > > > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
    > > >
    > > > Why is this min_mapped_pages based on zone (IOW, per-zone) ?
    > > >
    > >
    > > Kamezawa-San, this has been the design before the refactoring (it is
    > > based on zone_reclaim_mode and reclaim based on top of that). I am
    > > reusing bits of existing technology. The advantage of it being
    > > per-zone is that it integrates well with kswapd.
    > >
    >

    Sorry, what I wanted to here was:

    Why min_mapped_pages per zone ?
    Why you don't add "limit_for_unmapped_page_cache_size" for the whole system ?

    I guess what you really want is "limit_for_unmapped_page_cache_size".

    Then, you have to use this kind of mysterious code.
    ==
    (zone_unmapped_file_pages(zone) >
    + UNMAPPED_PAGE_RATIO * zone->min_unmapped_pages))

    Thanks,
    -Kame



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-12-01 10:07    [W:0.026 / U:30.992 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site