On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 08:40:15AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > Which of these is better or is there an alternative suggestion on how > > > this livelock can be avoided? > > > > We need to run some experiments to see what is worse. Lets start by > > cutting both the stats threshold and the drift thing in half? > > > > Ok, I have no problem with that although again, I'm really not in the position > to roll patches for it right now. I don't want to get side-tracked. Ok the stat threshold determines the per_cpu_drift_mark. So changing the threshold should do the trick. Try this: --- mm/vmstat.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) Index: linux-2.6/mm/vmstat.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/vmstat.c 2010-09-28 09:04:48.000000000 -0500 +++ linux-2.6/mm/vmstat.c 2010-09-28 09:05:16.000000000 -0500 @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ static int calculate_threshold(struct zo mem = zone->present_pages >> (27 - PAGE_SHIFT); - threshold = 2 * fls(num_online_cpus()) * (1 + fls(mem)); + threshold = fls(num_online_cpus()) * (1 + fls(mem)); /* * Maximum threshold is 125 -- 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>