LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Lumpy Reclaim V3
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:13:12 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061212031312.e4c91778.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <exportbomb.1165424343@pinky>

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:59:04 +0000
Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:

> This is a repost of the lumpy reclaim patch set.

more...

One concern is that when the code goes to reclaim a lump and fails, we end
up reclaiming a number of pages which we didn't really want to reclaim. 
Regardless of the LRU status of those pages.

I think what we should do here is to add the appropriate vmstat counters
for us to be able to assess the frequency of this occurring, then throw a
spread of workloads at it.  If that work indicates that there's a problem
then we should look at being a bit smarter about whether all the pages look
to be reclaimable and if not, restore them all and give up.

Also, I suspect it would be cleaner and faster to pass the `active' flag
into isolate_lru_pages(), rather than calculating it on the fly.  And I
don't think we need to calculate it on every pass through the loop?


We really do need those vmstat counters to let us see how effective this
thing is being.  Basic success/fail stuff.  Per-zone, I guess.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-12-12 11:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-12-06 16:59 Andy Whitcroft
2006-12-06 16:59 ` [PATCH 1/4] lumpy reclaim v2 Andy Whitcroft
2006-12-15  4:57   ` Andrew Morton
2007-01-26 11:00     ` Andrew Morton
2006-12-06 17:00 ` [PATCH 2/4] lumpy cleanup a missplaced comment and simplify some code Andy Whitcroft
2006-12-06 17:00 ` [PATCH 3/4] lumpy ensure we respect zone boundaries Andy Whitcroft
2006-12-06 17:01 ` [PATCH 4/4] lumpy take the other active inactive pages in the area Andy Whitcroft
2006-12-11 23:29 ` [PATCH 0/4] Lumpy Reclaim V3 Andrew Morton
2007-01-29 12:24   ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-12-12 11:13 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2006-12-12 13:14   ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-01-29 12:25   ` Andy Whitcroft
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-11-23 16:48 Andy Whitcroft
2006-11-23 19:02 ` Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20061212031312.e4c91778.akpm@osdl.org \
    --to=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=apw@shadowen.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 0/4] Lumpy Reclaim V3' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).