On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/30/2010 09:23 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > >> Ying's one and mine both has a same effect. >> Only difference happens swap is full. My version maintains old >> behavior but Ying's one changes the behavior. I admit swap full is >> rare event but I hoped not changed old behavior if we doesn't find any >> problem. >> If kswapd does aging when swap full happens, is it a problem? > > It may be a good thing, since swap will often be freed again > (when something is swapped in, or exits). > > Having some more anonymous pages sit on the inactive list > gives them a chance to get used again, potentially giving > us a better chance of preserving the working set when swap > is full or near full a lot of the time. Do you mean we would be better to do background aging when swap is full? I wanted it. So I used total_swap_pages to protect working set when swap is full. But Ying and KOSAKI's don't like it since it makes code inconsistent or not simply. And I agree it's rare event as KOSAKI mentioned. Hmm... What do you think about it? If you don't mind, I will resend latest version(use nr_swap_page usage and compile out inactive_anon_is_low in case of !CONFIG_SWAP). -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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>