From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: akataria@vmware.com
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hugepages should be accounted as unevictable pages.
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:55:33 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A414F55.2040808@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1245793331.24110.33.camel@alok-dev1>
Alok Kataria wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 14:24 -0700, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> I can see something reasonable on both sides of this
>> particular debate. However, even with this patch the
>> "unevictable" statistic does not reclaim the total
>> number of pages that are unevictable pages from a
>> zone, so I am not sure how it helps you achieve your
>> goal.
>
> Yes but most of the other memory (page table and others) which is
> unevictable is actually static in nature. IOW, the amount of this other
> kind of kernel unevictable pages can be actually interpolated from the
> amount of physical memory on the system.
That would be a fair argument, if it were true.
Things like page tables and dentry/inode caches vary
according to the use case and are allocated as needed.
They are in no way "static in nature".
--
All rights reversed.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: akataria@vmware.com
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hugepages should be accounted as unevictable pages.
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:55:33 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A414F55.2040808@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1245793331.24110.33.camel@alok-dev1>
Alok Kataria wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 14:24 -0700, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> I can see something reasonable on both sides of this
>> particular debate. However, even with this patch the
>> "unevictable" statistic does not reclaim the total
>> number of pages that are unevictable pages from a
>> zone, so I am not sure how it helps you achieve your
>> goal.
>
> Yes but most of the other memory (page table and others) which is
> unevictable is actually static in nature. IOW, the amount of this other
> kind of kernel unevictable pages can be actually interpolated from the
> amount of physical memory on the system.
That would be a fair argument, if it were true.
Things like page tables and dentry/inode caches vary
according to the use case and are allocated as needed.
They are in no way "static in nature".
--
All rights reversed.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-23 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-22 21:25 [PATCH] Hugepages should be accounted as unevictable pages Alok Kataria
2009-06-22 21:25 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 3:25 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-23 3:25 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-23 4:46 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 4:46 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 5:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-23 5:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-23 5:11 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-06-23 5:11 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-06-23 5:54 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 5:54 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 6:06 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-06-23 6:06 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-06-23 19:28 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 19:28 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 20:30 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2009-06-23 20:30 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2009-06-23 21:24 ` Rik van Riel
2009-06-23 21:24 ` Rik van Riel
2009-06-23 21:42 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 21:42 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 21:55 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2009-06-23 21:55 ` Rik van Riel
2009-06-23 22:06 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 22:06 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 22:19 ` Dave Hansen
2009-06-23 22:19 ` Dave Hansen
2009-06-23 22:55 ` Rik van Riel
2009-06-23 22:55 ` Rik van Riel
2009-06-23 23:28 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 23:28 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 23:48 ` Dave Hansen
2009-06-23 23:48 ` Dave Hansen
2009-06-23 22:15 ` Dave Hansen
2009-06-23 22:15 ` Dave Hansen
2009-06-23 22:23 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 22:23 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 23:41 ` Dave Hansen
2009-06-23 23:41 ` Dave Hansen
2009-06-24 0:08 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-24 0:08 ` Alok Kataria
2009-06-23 12:26 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2009-06-23 12:26 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2009-06-29 9:58 ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-29 9:58 ` Mel Gorman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4A414F55.2040808@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=akataria@vmware.com \
--cc=dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.