Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758539Ab2FZIKA (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:10:00 -0400 Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:40538 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758513Ab2FZIJz (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:09:55 -0400 Message-ID: <4FE96DAF.3050208@parallels.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:07:11 +0400 From: Glauber Costa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Minchan Kim CC: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , LKML , Rik van Riel , Mel Gorman , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , KOSAKI Motohiro , Johannes Weiner , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , Anton Vorontsov , John Stultz , Pekka Enberg , Wu Fengguang , Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: RFC: Easy-Reclaimable LRU list References: <4FE012CD.6010605@kernel.org> <4FE82555.2010704@parallels.com> <4FE8FE70.6050107@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <4FE8FE70.6050107@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [109.173.9.3] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1388 Lines: 42 On 06/26/2012 04:12 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > On 06/25/2012 05:46 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: > >> On 06/19/2012 09:49 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: >>> Hi everybody! >>> >>> Recently, there are some efforts to handle system memory pressure. >>> >>> 1) low memory notification - [1] >>> 2) fallocate(VOLATILE) - [2] >>> 3) fadvise(NOREUSE) - [3] >>> >>> For them, I would like to add new LRU list, aka "Ereclaimable" which >>> is opposite of "unevictable". >>> Reclaimable LRU list includes_easy_ reclaimable pages. >>> For example, easy reclaimable pages are following as. >>> >>> 1. invalidated but remained LRU list. >>> 2. pageout pages for reclaim(PG_reclaim pages) >>> 3. fadvise(NOREUSE) >>> 4. fallocate(VOLATILE) >>> >>> Their pages shouldn't stir normal LRU list and compaction might not >>> migrate them, even. >> What about other things moving memory like CMA ? > > > Sorry for not being able to understand your point. > Can you elaborate a bit more? > Well, maybe I didn't =) I was just wondering why exactly it is that troubles your scheme with compaction, and if such restriction would also apply to memory movement schemes like CMA. -- 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/