On Wed 10-07-19 19:48:09, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:55:19AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > I am still not convinced about the SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX batching and the > > udnerlying OOM argument. Is one pmd worth of pages really an OOM risk? > > Sure you can have many invocations in parallel and that would add on > > but the same might happen with SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX. So I would just remove > > the batching for now and think of it only if we really see this being a > > problem for real. Unless you feel really strong about this, of course. > > I don't have the number to support SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX batching for hinting > operations. However, I wanted to be consistent with other LRU batching > logic so that it could affect altogether if someone try to increase > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX which is more efficienty for batching operation, later. > (AFAIK, someone tried it a few years ago but rollback soon, I couldn't > rebemeber what was the reason at that time, anyway). Then please drop this part. It makes the code more complex while any benefit is not demonstrated. > > Anyway the patch looks ok to me otherwise. > > > > Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> > > Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
