From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E696B004A for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:55:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:55:13 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: shrinkers: Add node to indicate where to target shrinking Message-ID: <20101022155513.GA26790@infradead.org> References: <20101021235854.GD3270@amd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101021235854.GD3270@amd> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: Christoph Lameter , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andi Kleen List-ID: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:58:54AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Again, I really think it needs to be per zone. Something like inode > cache could still have lots of allocations in ZONE_NORMAL with plenty > of memory free there, but a DMA zone shortage could cause it to trash > the caches. I think making shrinking decision per-zone is fine. But do we need to duplicate all the lru lists and infrastructure per-zone for that instead of simply per-zone? Even with per-node lists we can easily skip over items from the wrong zone. Given that we have up to 6 zones per node currently, and we would mostly use one with a few fallbacks that seems like a lot of overkill. -- 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