From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:31:24 -0500 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] the proposal of improve page reclaim by throttle Message-ID: <20080219083124.2daf94e9@bree.surriel.com> In-Reply-To: <200802191735.00222.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> References: <20080219134715.7E90.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <200802191735.00222.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Balbir Singh , Lee Schermerhorn , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:34:59 +1100 Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tuesday 19 February 2008 16:44, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > background > > ======================================== > > current VM implementation doesn't has limit of # of parallel reclaim. > > when heavy workload, it bring to 2 bad things > > - heavy lock contention > > - unnecessary swap out > I think it should maybe be a per-zone thing... > > What happens if you make it a per-zone mutex, and allow just a single > process to reclaim pages from a given zone at a time? I guess that is > going to slow down throughput a little bit in some cases though... I agree, doing things per zone will probably work better, because that way one process can do page reclaim on every NUMA node at the same time. -- 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: email@kvack.org