> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > AFAICT this is not argument error but someone changed the naming of the
> > > parameter.
> >
> > It's been there since day zero:
> >
> > : commit 2a16e3f4b0c408b9e50297d2ec27e295d490267a
> > : Author: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > : AuthorDate: Wed Feb 1 03:05:35 2006 -0800
> > : Commit: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > : CommitDate: Wed Feb 1 08:53:16 2006 -0800
> > :
> > : [PATCH] Reclaim slab during zone reclaim
>
> That only shows that the order parameter was passed to shrink_slab() which
> is what I remember being done intentionally.
>
> Vaguely recall that this was necessary to avoid shrink_slab() throwing out
> too many pages for higher order allocs.
But It make opposite effect. number of scanning objects of shrink_slab() are
lru_scanned max_pass
basic_scan_objects = 4 x ------------- x -----------------------------
lru_pages shrinker->seeks (default:2)
scan_objects = min(basic_scan_objects, max_pass * 2)
That said, small lru_pages parameter makes too many slab dropping.
Practically, zone-reclaim always take max_pass*2. about inode,
shrink_icache_memory() takes number of unused inode as max_pass.
It mean one shrink_slab() calling drop all icache. Is this optimal
behavior? why?
Am I missing something?
> Initially zone_reclaim was full of heuristics that later were replaced by
> counter as the new ZVCs became available and gradually better ways of
> accounting for pages became possible.
--
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>