From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B70F6B004F for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:25:33 +0800 From: Wu Fengguang Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: count only reclaimable lru pages Message-ID: <20090716142533.GA27165@localhost> References: <20090716133454.GA20550@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Minchan Kim , Johannes Weiner , David Howells , "riel@redhat.com" , Andrew Morton , LKML , "peterz@infradead.org" , "tytso@mit.edu" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "elladan@eskimo.com" , "npiggin@suse.de" , "Barnes, Jesse" List-ID: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:00:51PM +0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > When swap is full or not present, the anon lru lists are not reclaimable > > and thus won't be scanned. So the anon pages shall not be counted. Also > > rename the function names to reflect the new meaning. > > > > It can greatly (and correctly) increase the slab scan rate under high memory > > pressure (when most file pages have been reclaimed and swap is full/absent), > > thus avoid possible false OOM kills. > > Reclaimable? Are all pages on the LRUs truly reclaimable? No, only possibly reclaimable :) What would you suggest? In fact I'm not totally comfortable with it. Maybe it would be safer to simply stick with the old _lru_pages naming? Thanks, Fengguang > Aside from that nit. > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter -- 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