[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] linear reclaim core
On Fri, 8 September 2006 11:41:14 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'm somewhat surprised at the implementation. Would it not be sufficient
> to do this within shrink_inactive_list()? Something along the lines of:
> - Pick tail page off LRU.
> - For all "neighbour" pages (alignment == 1<<order, count == 1<<order)
> - If they're all PageLRU and !PageActive, add them all to page_list for
> possible reclaim
> And, in shrink_active_list:
> - Pick tail page off LRU
> - For all "neighbour" pages (alignment == 1<<order, count == 1<<order)
> If they're all PageLRU, put all the active pages in this block onto
> l_hold for possible deactivation.

Hmm. Trying to shoot holes into your approach, I find two potential
A) With sufficient fragmentation, all inactive pages have one active
neighbour, so shrink_inactive_list() will never find a cluster of the
required order.
B) With some likelihood, shrink_active_list() will pick neighbours
which happen to be rather hot pages. They get freed, only to get
paged in again within little more than rotational latency.

How about something like:
1. Free 1<<order pages from the inactive list.
2. Pick a page cluster of requested order.
3. Move all pages from the cluster to the just freed pages.

[ Disclaimer: I just started dabbling in mm after Andi Kleen's
presentation on Linux Kongress on friday. My tiny gem of knowledge,
if present at all, might be well hidden in the ignorance of an
mm-newbie. ]


It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame.
-- unknown
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: 2006-09-11 01:49    [W:0.052 / U:2.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site