Re: [PATCH] low order lumpy reclaim also should usePAGEOUT_IO_SYNC.

[Minchan Kim]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:21:18 +0900 (JST)
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Hi, Kosaki-san. 
> > 
> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:22:27 +0900 (JST)
> > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Subject: [PATCH] low order lumpy reclaim also should use PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC.
> > > 
> > > commit 33c120ed2843090e2bd316de1588b8bf8b96cbde (more aggressively use lumpy reclaim)
> > > change lumpy reclaim using condition. but it isn't enough change.
> > > 
> > > lumpy reclaim don't only mean isolate neighber page, but also do pageout as synchronous.
> > > this patch does it.
> > 
> > I agree. 
> > 
> > Andi added  synchronous lumpy reclaim with c661b078fd62abe06fd11fab4ac5e4eeafe26b6d.
> > At that time, lumpy reclaim is not agressive. 
> > His intension is just for high-order users.(above PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER). 
> > 
> > After some time, Rik added aggressive lumpy reclaim with 33c120ed2843090e2bd316de1588b8bf8b96cbde.
> > His intension is that do lumpy reclaim when high-order users and trouble getting a small set of contiguous pages. 
> > 
> > So we also have to add synchronous pageout for small set of contiguous pages. 
> > Nice catch!. 
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <Minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > BTW, Do you have any number ? 
> 
> No.
> 
> Actually, this logic only run when system is strongly memory stavation
> or fragment. not normal case.
> 
> At that time, another slowdown thing hide synchronous reclaim latency, I think.
> 

Yes. I think it's hard measure, too. 
I was just out of curiosity if server guy have a any benchmark method. ;-)


-- 
Kinds Regards
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/