On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Ying Han <yinghan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Rik, Hugh and everyone, >> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:35:09AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: >>> On 03/29/2011 12:36 AM, James Bottomley wrote: >>> > Hi All, >>> > >>> > Since LSF is less than a week away, the programme committee put together >>> > a just in time preliminary agenda for LSF. As you can see there is >>> > still plenty of empty space, which you can make suggestions >>> >>> There have been a few patches upstream by people for who >>> page allocation latency is a concern. >>> >>> It may be worthwhile to have a short discussion on what >>> we can do to keep page allocation (and direct reclaim?) >>> latencies down to a minimum, reducing the slowdown that >>> direct reclaim introduces on some workloads. >> >> I don't see the patches you refer to, but checking schedule we've a >> slot with Mel&Minchan about "Reclaim, compaction and LRU >> ordering". Compaction only applies to high order allocations and it >> changes nothing to PAGE_SIZE allocations, but it surely has lower >> latency than the older lumpy reclaim logic so overall it should be a >> net improvement compared to what we had before. >> >> Should the latency issues be discussed in that track? >> >> The MM schedule has still a free slot 14-14:30 on Monday, I wonder if >> there's interest on a "NUMA automatic migration and scheduling >> awareness" topic or if it's still too vapourware for a real topic and >> we should keep it for offtrack discussions, and maybe we should >> reserve it for something more tangible with patches already floating >> around. Comments welcome. > > > In page reclaim, I would like to discuss on the magic "8" * > high_wmark() in balance_pgdat(). I recently found the discussion on > thread "too big min_free_kbytes", where I didn't find where we proved > it is still a problem or not. This might not need reserve time slot, > but something I want to learn more on. well, forgot to mention. I also noticed that has been changed in mmotm by a "balance_gap". In general, I would like to understand why we can not stick on high_wmark for kswapd regardless of zones. Thanks --Ying > > --Ying > > >> >> Thanks, >> Andrea >> >> -- >> 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ >> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> >> > -- 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href