From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sd0109e.au.ibm.com (d23rh905.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.225]) by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m1LB7TFf005230 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:07:29 +1100 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (d23av01.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.96]) by sd0109e.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m1LBAI4w276904 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:10:18 +1100 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av01.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m1LB6dv6003093 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:06:40 +1100 Message-ID: <47BD5A31.9070401@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:32:09 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] the proposal of improve page reclaim by throttle References: <20080219134715.7E90.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <47BD48F3.3040903@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <2f11576a0802210301sb162ac9u6cf4ba4d5cb179b4@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2f11576a0802210301sb162ac9u6cf4ba4d5cb179b4@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Rik van Riel , Lee Schermerhorn , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Hi balbir-san > >> It's good to keep the main reclaim code and the memory controller reclaim in >> sync, so this is a nice effort. > > thank you. > I will repost next version (fixed nick's opinion) while a few days. > >> > @@ -1456,7 +1501,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pag >> > int target_zone = gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE); >> > >> > zones = NODE_DATA(numa_node_id())->node_zonelists[target_zone].zones; >> > - if (do_try_to_free_pages(zones, sc.gfp_mask, &sc)) >> > + if (try_to_free_pages_throttled(zones, 0, sc.gfp_mask, &sc)) >> > return 1; >> > return 0; >> > } >> >> try_to_free_pages_throttled checks for zone_watermark_ok(), that will not work >> in the case that we are reclaiming from a cgroup which over it's limit. We need >> a different check, to see if the mem_cgroup is still over it's limit or not. > > That makes sense. > > unfortunately, I don't know mem-cgroup so much. > What do i use function, instead? One option could be that once the memory controller has this feature, we'll need no changes in try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages. -- 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