Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:53:00 +0100 | From | Mel Gorman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH for mmotm 0/5] introduce swap-backed-file-mapped count and fix vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.patch |
| |
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:42:33PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:25:09PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > Recently, Wu Fengguang pointed out vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.patch > > > has underflow problem. > > > > > > > Can you drop this aspect of the patchset please? I'm doing a final test > > on the scan-avoidance heuristic that incorporates this patch and the > > underflow fix. Ram (the tester of the malloc()-stall) confirms the patch > > fixes his problem. > > OK. > insted, I'll join to review your patch :) >
Thanks. You should have it now. In particular, I'm interested in hearing you opinion about patch 1 of the series "Fix malloc() stall in zone_reclaim() and bring behaviour more in line with expectations V3" and if addresses;
1. Does patch 1 address the problem that first led you to develop the patch vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.patch?
2. Do you think patch 1 should merge with and replace vmscan-change-the-number-of-the-unmapped-files-in-zone-reclaim.patch?
> > > This patch series introduce new vmstat of swap-backed-file-mapped and fix above > > > patch by it. >
I don't think the patch above needs to be fixed by another counter. At least, once the underflow was fixed up, it handled the malloc-stall without additional counters. If we need to account swap-backed-file-mapped, we need another failure case that it addresses to be sure we're doing the right thing.
-- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
| |