On 01/12/2018 03:24 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 12-01-18 00:59:38, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: >> On 01/11/2018 07:29 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] >>> I do not think so. Consider that this reclaim races with other >>> reclaimers. Now you are reclaiming a large chunk so you might end up >>> reclaiming more than necessary. SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX would reduce the over >>> reclaim to be negligible. >>> >> >> I did consider this. And I think, I already explained that sort of race in previous email. >> Whether "Task B" is really a task in cgroup or it's actually a bunch of reclaimers, >> doesn't matter. That doesn't change anything. > > I would _really_ prefer two patches here. The first one removing the > hard coded reclaim count. That thing is just dubious at best. If you > _really_ think that the higher reclaim target is meaningfull then make > it a separate patch. I am not conviced but I will not nack it it either. > But it will make our life much easier if my over reclaim concern is > right and we will need to revert it. Conceptually those two changes are > independent anywa. > Ok, fair point. But what about livelock than? Don't you think that we should go back to something like in V1 patch to prevent it? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
