Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751174AbWJQRx0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:53:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751327AbWJQRx0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:53:26 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:3635 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751174AbWJQRxZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:53:25 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent: x-accept-language:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to: content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=GPPqKRa4MGchnJF42vvl1KpAIA+Zxud+xCL6G6CNaGgLkGQ/f7huKDcw5Owc7eGXx v7BsMk/uPz6TevlQ50NxQ== Message-ID: <45351877.9030107@google.com> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:52:55 -0700 From: Martin Bligh User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051011) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Piggin CC: Andrew Morton , LKML , Linux Memory Management , Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove temp_priority References: <45351423.70804@google.com> <4535160E.2010908@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <4535160E.2010908@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1934 Lines: 50 Nick Piggin wrote: > Martin Bligh wrote: > >> This is not tested yet. What do you think? >> >> This patch removes temp_priority, as it is racy. We're setting >> prev_priority from it, and yet temp_priority could have been >> set back to DEF_PRIORITY by another reclaimer. > > > I like it. OK, I think that should fix most of it, and I'll admit it's cleaner than the first one. > I wonder if we should get kswapd to stick its priority > into the zone at the point where zone_watermark_ok becomes true, > rather than setting all zones to the lowest priority? That would > require a bit more logic though I guess. > > For that matter (going off the topic a bit), I wonder if > try_to_free_pages should have a watermark check there too? This > might help reduce the latency issue you brought up where one process > has reclaimed a lot of pages, but another isn't making any progress > and has to go through the full priority range? Maybe that's > statistically pretty unlikely? I've been mulling over how to kill prev_priority (and make everyone happy, including akpm). My original thought was to keep a different min_priority for each of GFP_IO, GFP_IO|GFP_FS, and the no IO ones. But we still have the problem of how to accurately set the min back up when we are sucessful. Perhaps we should be a little more radical, and treat everyone apart from kswapd as independant. Keep a kswapd_priority in the zone structure, and all the direct reclaimers have their own local priority. Then we set distress from min(kswap_priority, priority). All that does is kick the direct reclaimers up a bit faster - kswapd has the easiest time reclaiming pages, so that should never be too low. M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/