Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix malloc() stall in zone_reclaim() and bring behaviour more in line with expectations V3
From: KOSAKI Motohiro
Date: Wed Jun 17 2009 - 06:07:06 EST
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > I don't have a particular workload in mind to be perfectly honest. I'm just not
> > convinced of the wisdom of trying to unmap pages by default in zone_reclaim()
> > just because the NUMA distances happen to be large.
> zone reclaim = 1 is supposed to be light weight with minimal impact. The
> intend was just to remove potentially unused pagecache pages so that node
> local allocations can succeed again. So lets not unmap pages.
hm, At least major two zone reclaim developer disagree my patch. Thus I have to
agree with you, because I really don't hope to ignore other developer's opnion.
So, as far as I understand, the conclusion of this thread are
- Drop my patch
- instead, implement improvement patch of (may_unmap && page_mapped()) case
- the documentation should be changed
- it's my homework(?)
Can you agree this?
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/