Re: [PATCH 4/8][for -mm] mem_notify v6: memory_pressure_notify() caller

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

Hi Andrew

> > and, It is judged out of trouble at the fllowing situations.
> >  o memory pressure decrease and stop moves an anonymous page to the
> > inactive list.
> >  o free pages increase than (pages_high+lowmem_reserve)*2.
> 
> This seems rather arbitrary.  Why choose this stage in the page
> reclaimation process rather than some other stage?
> 
> If this feature is useful then I'd expect that some applications would want
> notification at different times, or at different levels of VM distress.  So
> this semi-randomly-chosen notification point just won't be strong enough in
> real-world use.

Hmmm
actually, This portion become code broat through some bug reports.

Yes, I think it again and implement it more simplefy.
Thanks!


> Does this change work correctly and appropriately for processes which are
> running in a cgroup memory controller?

nice point out.

to be honest, I don't think at mem-cgroup until now.
I will implement it at next post.

> Given the amount of code which these patches add, and the subsequent
> maintenance burden, and the unlikelihood of getting many applications to
> actually _use_ the interface, it is not obvious to me that inclusion in the
> kernel is justifiable, sorry.

OK.
I'll implement it again more simplefy.
Thanks.


> memory_pressure_notify() is far too large to be inlined.

OK.
I will fix it.

> Some of the patches were wordwrapped.

Agghh..
I will don't use gmail at next post.
sorry.


and,
I hope merge only poll_wait_exclusive() and wake_up_locked_nr()
if you don't mind.

this 2 portion anybody noclaim about 2 month.
and I think it is useful function by many people.



--
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/