From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761538AbYAKPm7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:42:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760033AbYAKPmx (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:42:53 -0500 Received: from g4t0017.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.20]:3044 "EHLO g4t0017.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759784AbYAKPmw (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:42:52 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch 10/19] No Reclaim LRU Infrastructure From: Lee Schermerhorn To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org In-Reply-To: <20080111133048.FD5C.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20080108205939.323955454@redhat.com> <20080108210008.383114457@redhat.com> <20080111133048.FD5C.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: HP/OSLO Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:43:43 -0500 Message-Id: <1200066224.5304.6.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 13:36 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > Hi Rik > > > +config NORECLAIM > > + bool "Track non-reclaimable pages (EXPERIMENTAL; 64BIT only)" > > + depends on EXPERIMENTAL && 64BIT > > + help > > + Supports tracking of non-reclaimable pages off the [in]active lists > > + to avoid excessive reclaim overhead on large memory systems. Pages > > + may be non-reclaimable because: they are locked into memory, they > > + are anonymous pages for which no swap space exists, or they are anon > > + pages that are expensive to unmap [long anon_vma "related vma" list.] > > Why do you select to default is NO ? > I think this is really improvement and no one of 64bit user > hope turn off without NORECLAIM developer :) > Hello, Kosaki-san: This was my doing. I left the default == NO during development/experimemental stage so that one would have to take explicit action to enable this function. If the feature makes it into mainline and we decide that the default should be 'yes', that will be an easy change. Thanks for looking at this, Lee Schermerhorn