On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:17:33 -0800
Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > At the 1st look, this just seem to increase the size of changes....
> >
> > IMHO, implementing background-reclaim-for-memcg is cleaner than reusing kswapd..
> > kswapd has tons of unnecessary checks.
>
> Sorry I am not aware of "background-reclaim-for-memcg", can you
> specify little bit more? Also,
> the unnecessary checks here refers to the kswapd() or balance_pgdat()?
> If the latter one, the
> logic is not being shared at all included in patch/3.
>
Yes, now I read patch/3 and I'm sorry to say that.
Some nits.
At 1st. I just coudln't undestand idea of array of kswapd descriptor.
Hmm, dynamic allocation isn't possible ? as
==
struct kswapd_param {
pg_data_t *pgdat;
struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
struct wait_queue *waitq;
};
int kswapd_run(int nid, struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
struct kswapd_param *param;
param = kzalloc(); /* freed by kswapd */
if (!memcg) { /* per-node kswapd */
param->pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid);
if (param->pgdat->kswapd)
return;
pgdat->kswapd = kthread_run(param);
..../* fatal error check */
return;
}
/* per-memcg kswapd */
kthread_run(param);
}
==
Secondaly, I think some macro is necessary.
How about
==
#define is_node_kswapd(param) (!param->memcg)
int kswapd(void *p)
{
struct kswapd_param *param = p;
if (is_node_kswapd(param))
param->waitq = ¶m->pgdat->kswapd_wait;
else
param->waitq = mem_cgroup_get_kswapd_waitq(param->memcg);
/* Here, we can notify the memcg which thread is for yours. */
or some ?
I think a macro like scanning_global_lru() is necessary.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>