From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:49:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 16 of 24] avoid some lock operation in vm fast path In-Reply-To: <20070912055952.bd5c99d6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <20070912055952.bd5c99d6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes List-ID: On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > OK, but we'd normally do this via some little wrapper functions which are > empty-if-not-numa. The only leftover function on reclaim_in_progress is to insure that zone_reclaim() does not run concurrently. Maybe that can be accomplished in a different way? On the other hand: Maybe we would like to limit concurrent reclaim even for direct reclaim. We have some livelock issues because of zone lock contention on large boxes that may perhaps improve if we would simply let one processor do its freeing job. -- 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