[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: new OOM heuristic failure (was: Re: VM: qsbench)
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> >
> > To clarify this one a bit:
> > shrink_cache is thought to do what it says, it is given a number
> > pages it should somehow manage to free by shrinking the cache.
What my
> > patch does is go after the _whole_ list to fulfill that.
> I would suggest a slight modification: make "max_mapped" grow as the
> priority goes up.
> Right now max_mapped is fixed at "nr_pages*10".
> You could have something like
> max_mapped = nr_pages * 60 / priority;
> instead, which might also alleviate the problem with not even
bothering to
> scan much of the inactive list simply because 99% of all pages are
> That way you don't waste time on looking at the rest of the inactive
> until you _need_ to.

Ok. I re-checked the code and found out this approach cannot stand.
the list scan _is_ already exited early when priority is low:

int max_scan = nr_inactive_pages / priority;

while (--max_scan >= 0 && (entry = inactive_list.prev) !=
&inactive_list) {

It will not make big sense to do it again in max_mapped.

On the other hand I am also very sure, that refining:

if (max_mapped==0)
swap_out(priority, gfp_mask, classzone);

return nr_pages;

in the end to:

if (max_mapped==0 && nr_pages>0)
swap_out(priority, gfp_mask, classzone);

return nr_pages;

is a good thing. We don't need swap_out if we gained all the pages
requested, no matter if we _could_ do it or not.

Is there some performance difference in this approach, Lorenzo? I
guess it should.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.064 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site