From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d28relay04.in.ibm.com (d28relay04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.61]) by e28esmtp05.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m1E9JHp6028921 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:49:17 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (d28av04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.66]) by d28relay04.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m1E9JG6v1020020 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:49:16 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av04.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m1E9JGww013081 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:19:16 GMT Message-ID: <47B406E4.9060109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:46:20 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 3/4] Reclaim from groups over their soft limit under memory pressure References: <20080213151201.7529.53642.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20080213151242.7529.79924.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20080214163054.81deaf27.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <47B3F073.1070804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080214174236.aa2aae9b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080214174236.aa2aae9b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Hugh Dickins , Peter Zijlstra , YAMAMOTO Takashi , Paul Menage , Lee Schermerhorn , Herbert Poetzl , "Eric W. Biederman" , David Rientjes , Pavel Emelianov , Nick Piggin , Rik Van Riel , Andrew Morton List-ID: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:10:35 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > >>> And I think it's big workload to relclaim all excessed pages at once. >>> >>> How about just reclaiming small # of pages ? like >>> == >>> if (nr_bytes_over_sl <= 0) >>> goto next; >>> nr_pages = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX; >> I thought about this, but wanted to push back all groups over their soft limit >> back to their soft limit quickly. I'll experiment with your suggestion and see >> how the system behaves when we push back pages slowly. Thanks for the suggestion. > > My point is an unlucky process may have to reclaim tons of pages even if > what he wants is just 1 page. It's not good, IMO. > Yes, that makes sense. > Probably backgound-reclaim patch will be able to help this soft-limit situation, > if a daemon can know it should reclaim or not. > Yes, I agree. I might just need to schedule the daemon under memory pressure. > Thanks, > -Kame -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL -- 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