From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ksm: let shared pages be swappable
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
       KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
       Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Izik Eidus <ieidus@redhat.com>, Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
In-Reply-To: <20091201093738.GL30235@random.random>
References: <20091201181633.5C31.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091201093738.GL30235@random.random>
Message-Id: <20091201184535.5C37.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue,  1 Dec 2009 18:46:06 +0900 (JST)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1871
Lines: 35

> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 06:28:16PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > This patch doesn't works correctly. shrink_active_list() use page_referenced() for
> > clear young bit and doesn't use return value.
> 
> The whole point is that it's inefficient to clear all young bits just
> to move it to inactive list in the hope that new young bits will be
> set right before the page reaches the end of the inactive list.
> 
> > after this patch apply, shrink_active_list() move the page to inactive list although
> > the page still have many young bit. then, next shrink_inactive_list() move the page
> > to active list again.
> 
> yes it's not the end of the world, this only alter behavior for pages
> that have plenty of mappings. However I still it's inefficient to
> pretend to clear all young bits at once when page is deactivated. But
> this is not something I'm interested to argue about... let do what you
> like there, but as long as you pretend to clear all dirty bits there
> is no way we can fix anything. Plus we should touch ptes only in
> presence of heavy memory pressure, with light memory pressure ptes
> should _never_ be touched, and we should only shrink unmapped
> cache. And active/inactive movements must still happen even in
> presence of light memory pressure. The reason is that with light
> memory pressure we're not I/O bound and we don't want to waste time
> there. My patch is ok, what is not ok is the rest, you got to change
> the rest to deal with this.

Ah, well. please wait a bit. I'm under reviewing Larry's patch. I don't
dislike your idea. last mail only pointed out implementation thing.


--
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/