Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix malloc() stall in zone_reclaim() and bring behaviour more in line with expectations V3

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> 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/