Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 02 Nov 2001 03:30:36 +0100 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Re: 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 of > > 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 mapped. > > That way you don't waste time on looking at the rest of the inactive list > 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. Regards, Stephan - 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/
| |