From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756088Ab1G2JuQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 29 Jul 2011 05:50:16 -0400
Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:35760 "EHLO
	mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755826Ab1G2JuO (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 29 Jul 2011 05:50:14 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:50:05 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        XFS <xfs@oss.sgi.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>,
        Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] Reduce filesystem writeback from page reclaim v2
Message-ID: <20110729095005.GH1843@barrios-desktop>
References: <1311265730-5324-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
 <20110727161821.GA1738@barrios-desktop>
 <20110728113852.GN3010@suse.de>
 <20110729094816.GG1843@barrios-desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110729094816.GG1843@barrios-desktop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Sorry for missing Ccing.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 06:48:16PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:38:52PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 01:18:21AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 05:28:42PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > Note how preventing kswapd reclaiming dirty pages pushes up its CPU
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > > > usage as it scans more pages but it does not get excessive due to
> > > > the throttling.
> > > 
> > > Good to hear.
> > > The concern of this patchset was early OOM kill with too many scanning.
> > > I can throw such concern out from now on.
> > > 
> > 
> > At least, I haven't been able to trigger a premature OOM.
> 
> AFAIR, Andrew had a premature OOM problem[1] but I couldn't track down at that time.
> I think this patch series might solve his problem. Although it doesn't, it should not accelerate
> his problem, at least.
> 
> Andrew, Could you test this patchset?
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/25/415
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim