> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:13:20PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > shrink_zones() need relatively long time. and lru_pages can be > > changed dramatically while shrink_zones(). > > then, lru_pages need recalculate on each priority. > > In the direct reclaim path, we bail out of that loop after > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX reclaimed pages, so in this case, decreasing priority > levels actually mean we do _not_ make any progress and the total > number of lru pages should not change (much). The possible distortion > in shrink_slab() is small. Oh, you seems forgot the case when much thread enter try_to_free_pages() concurrently. > > However, for the suspend-to-disk case the reclaim target can be a lot > higher and we inevitably end up at higher priorities even though we > make progress, but fail to increase pressure on the shrinkers as well > without your patch. > > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>