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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site