DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=ScBG52bK/yXtajdqrQsfch9gDWxGl+gi04WLk6eRreWzkVVDRZprXR7fLrHfhvdPlc
         ZxSf7bE9jXZuDSdwldF2jajRyRNIgqxK8AJm8cCM1fse1arzGFhfZwPbF0ZbFVuBcphr
         oKsoHb4TWaGLWED2pbzXSI+GMx/oRB0BRmRK0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20101122231558.57b6e04c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <bdd6628e81c06f6871983c971d91160fca3f8b5e.1290349672.git.minchan.kim@gmail.com>
	<20101122141449.9de58a2c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<AANLkTimk4JL7hDvLWuHjiXGNYxz8GJ_TypWFC=74Xt1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101122210132.be9962c7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<AANLkTin62R1=2P+Sh0YKJ3=KAa6RfLQLKJcn2VEtoZfG@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101122212220.ae26d9a5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<AANLkTinTp2N3_uLEm7nf0=Xu2f9Rjqg9Mjjxw-3YVCcw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101122214814.36c209a6.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<AANLkTimpfZuKW-hXjXknn3ESKP81AN3BaXO=qG81Lrae@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101122231558.57b6e04c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:44:50 +0900
Message-ID: <AANLkTin9AFFDu1ShVNn2SDyTTOMczURuyZVGSjOxPq7E@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] deactive invalidated pages
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>,
        Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1673
Lines: 42

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:05:39 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton
>> >> > move it to the head of the LRU anyway. __But given that the user has
>> >>
>> >> Why does it move into head of LRU?
>> >> If the page which isn't mapped doesn't have PG_referenced, it would be
>> >> reclaimed.
>> >
>> > If it's dirty or under writeback it can't be reclaimed!
>>
>> I see your point. And it's why I add it to head of inactive list.
>
> But that *guarantees* that the page will get a full trip around the
> inactive list. ?And this will guarantee that potentially useful pages
> are reclaimed before the pages which we *know* the user doesn't want!
> Bad!
>
> Whereas if we queue it to the tail, it will only get that full trip if
> reclaim happens to run before the page is cleaned. ?And we just agreed
> that reclaim isn't likely to run immediately, because pages are being
> freed.
>
> So we face a choice between guaranteed eviction of potentially-useful
> pages (which are very expensive to reestablish) versus a *possible*
> need to move an unreclaimable page to the head of the LRU, which is
> cheap.

How about flagging SetPageReclaim when we add it to head of inactive?
If page write is complete, end_page_writeback would move it to tail of
inactive.

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/