Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932130Ab2HFUjG (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:39:06 -0400 Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.137]:39913 "EHLO e7.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755991Ab2HFUjD (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:39:03 -0400 Message-ID: <50202B2F.5000003@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:38:07 -0700 From: John Stultz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Minchan Kim CC: LKML , Andrew Morton , Android Kernel Team , Robert Love , Mel Gorman , Hugh Dickins , Dave Hansen , Rik van Riel , Dmitry Adamushko , Dave Chinner , Neil Brown , Andrea Righi , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Mike Hommey , Jan Kara , KOSAKI Motohiro , Michel Lespinasse , dan.magenheimer@oracle.com, "linux-mm@kvack.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] [RFC][HACK] Add LRU_VOLATILE support to the VM References: <1343447832-7182-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <1343447832-7182-5-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <20120806030451.GA11468@bbox> In-Reply-To: <20120806030451.GA11468@bbox> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12080620-5806-0000-0000-000018164A37 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2436 Lines: 62 On 08/05/2012 08:04 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi John, > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:57:11PM -0400, John Stultz wrote: >> In an attempt to push the volatile range managment even >> deeper into the VM code, this is my first attempt at >> implementing Minchan's idea of a LRU_VOLATILE list in >> the mm core. >> >> This list sits along side the LRU_ACTIVE_ANON, _INACTIVE_ANON, >> _ACTIVE_FILE, _INACTIVE_FILE and _UNEVICTABLE lru lists. >> >> When a range is marked volatile, the pages in that range >> are moved to the LRU_VOLATILE list. Since volatile pages >> can be quickly purged, this list is the first list we >> shrink when we need to free memory. >> >> When a page is marked non-volatile, it is moved from the >> LRU_VOLATILE list to the appropriate LRU_ACTIVE_ list. > I think active list promotion is not good. > It should go to the inactive list and they get a chance to > activate from inactive to active sooner or later if it is > really touched. Ok. Thanks, I'll change it so we move to the inactive list then. >> This patch introduces the LRU_VOLATILE list, an isvolatile >> page flag, functions to mark and unmark a single page >> as volatile, and shrinker functions to purge volatile >> pages. >> >> This is a very raw first pass, and is neither performant >> or likely bugfree. It works in my trivial testing, but >> I've not pushed it very hard yet. >> >> I wanted to send it out just to get some inital thoughts >> on the approach and any suggestions should I be going too >> far in the wrong direction. > I look at this series and found several nitpicks about implemenataion > but I think it's not a good stage about concerning it. Although while I know the design may still need significant change, I'd still appreciate nitpicks, as they might help me better understand the mm code and any mistakes I'm making. > Although naming is rather differet with I suggested, I think it's good idea. > So let's talk about it firstly. > I will call VOLATILE list as EReclaimale LRU list. Yea, I didn't want to call it ERECLAIMABLE since for this iteration I was limiting the scope just to volatile pages. I'm totally fine renaming it as the scope widens. thanks -john -- 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/