From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754738AbZHFJzW (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 05:55:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752227AbZHFJzW (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 05:55:22 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:59999 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751645AbZHFJzV (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2009 05:55:21 -0400 Message-ID: <4A7AA999.8050309@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:59:53 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wu Fengguang CC: "Dike, Jeffrey G" , Rik van Riel , "Yu, Wilfred" , "Kleen, Andi" , Andrea Arcangeli , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , KOSAKI Motohiro , Mel Gorman , LKML , linux-mm Subject: Re: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages? References: <20090805024058.GA8886@localhost> <4A79C70C.6010200@redhat.com> <9EECC02A4CC333418C00A85D21E89326B651C1FE@azsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com> <4A79D88E.2040005@redhat.com> <9EECC02A4CC333418C00A85D21E89326B651C21C@azsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com> <4A7AA0CF.2020700@redhat.com> <20090806092516.GA18425@localhost> <4A7AA3FF.9070808@redhat.com> <20090806093507.GA24669@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20090806093507.GA24669@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/06/2009 12:35 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 05:35:59PM +0800, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 08/06/2009 12:25 PM, Wu Fengguang wrote: >> >>>> So you're effectively running a 256M guest on a 128M host? >>>> >>>> Do cgroups have private active/inactive lists? >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, and they reuse the same page reclaim routines with the global >>> LRU lists. >>> >>> >> Then this looks like a bug in the shadow accessed bit handling. >> > > Yes. One question is: why only stack pages hurts if it is a > general page reclaim problem? > Do we know for a fact that only stack pages suffer, or is it what has been noticed? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function