On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:34:34 +0100 Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Here is V3 that depends again on flusher threads to do writeback in > direct reclaim rather than stack switching which is not something I'm > likely to get done before xfs/btrfs are ignoring writeback in mainline > (phd sucking up time). IMO, implemetning stack switching for this is not a good idea. We _already_ have a way of doing stack-switching. It's called "schedule()". The only reason I can see for implementing an in-place stack switch would be if schedule() is too expensive. And if we were to see excessive context-switch overheads in this code path (and we won't) then we should get in there and try to reduce the contect switch rate first. -- 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>