[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when zone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA
Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:31:09AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> The scanning occurs because zone_reclaim() cannot tell
>>> in advance the scan is pointless because the counters do not distinguish
>>> between pagecache pages backed by disk and by RAM.
>> Yes it can. Since 2.6.27, filesystem backed and swap/ram backed
>> pages have been living on separate LRU lists.
> Yes, they're on separate LRU lists but they are not the only pages on those
> lists. The tmpfs pages are mixed in together with anonymous pages so we
> cannot use NR_*_ANON.
> Look at patch 2 and where I introduced;

I have to admit I did not read patches 2 and 3 before
replying to the (strange looking, at the time) text
above patch 1.

With that logic from patch 2 in place, patch 1 makes
perfect sense.

Acked-by: Rik van Riel <>

All rights reversed.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-08 16:51    [W:0.053 / U:4.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site