From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f70.google.com (mail-wm0-f70.google.com [74.125.82.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5ED16B0033 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 06:18:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm0-f70.google.com with SMTP id y142so3241894wme.12 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 03:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id q7sor6740776edh.11.2017.10.19.03.18.34 for (Google Transport Security); Thu, 19 Oct 2017 03:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:18:32 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mlock: remove lru_add_drain_all() Message-ID: <20171019101832.xli25kizn3y55pbq@node.shutemov.name> References: <20171018231730.42754-1-shakeelb@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171018231730.42754-1-shakeelb@google.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Andrew Morton , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Vlastimil Babka , Michal Hocko , Joonsoo Kim , Minchan Kim , Yisheng Xie , Ingo Molnar , Greg Thelen , Hugh Dickins , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 04:17:30PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > Recently we have observed high latency in mlock() in our generic > library and noticed that users have started using tmpfs files even > without swap and the latency was due to expensive remote LRU cache > draining. Hm. Isn't the point of mlock() to pay price upfront and make execution smoother after this? With this you shift latency onto reclaim (and future memory allocation). I'm not sure if it's a win. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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