From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECF86B004D for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:51:26 -0400 (EDT) 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 Message-ID: <20090611105259.GC7302@csn.ul.ie> References: <20090611192114.6D4A.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090611103837.GB7302@csn.ul.ie> <20090611194141.6D5C.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090611194141.6D5C.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Wu Fengguang , linux-mm , LKML , Andrew Morton List-ID: 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 -- 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