From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p73DwhZd156228 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 08:58:45 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id CD216F3A3A1 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 06:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id XReUkaoAtW3W6331 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 06:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:58:39 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] mm: vmscan: Do not writeback filesystem pages from kswapd Message-ID: <20110803135839.GL19099@suse.de> References: <1311265730-5324-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1311265730-5324-9-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20110803113706.GF27199@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110803113706.GF27199@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Rik van Riel , Jan Kara , LKML , XFS , Christoph Hellwig , Linux-MM , Minchan Kim , Wu Fengguang On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 01:37:06PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 05:28:50PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Assuming that flusher threads will always write back dirty pages promptly > > then it is always faster for reclaimers to wait for flushers. This patch > > prevents kswapd writing back any filesystem pages. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > > Relying on the flushers may mean that every dirty page in the system > has to be written back before the pages from the zone of interest are > clean. > Yes. > De-facto we have only one mechanism to stay on top of the dirty pages > from a per-zone perspective, and that is single-page writeout from > reclaim. > Yes. > While we all agree that this sucks, we can not remove it unless we > have a replacement that makes zones reclaimable in a reasonable time > frame (or keep them reclaimable in the first place, what per-zone > dirty limits attempt to do). > > As such, please include > > Nacked-by: Johannes Weiner I've already dropped the patch. If I could, I would have signed this at the time as Signed-off-but-naking-it-anyway: Mel Gorman