On Mon, 9 May 2011 11:58:04 +0200 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 09:21:12AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Fri, 6 May 2011 16:22:57 +0200 > > Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks a lot for the explanation, this certainly makes sense. > > How about this: we put in memcg watermark reclaim first, as a pure > best-effort latency optimization, without the watermark configurable > from userspace. It's not a new concept, we have it with kswapd on a > global level. > > And on top of that, as a separate changeset, userspace gets a knob to > kick off async memcg reclaim when the system is idle. With the > justification you wrote above. We can still discuss the exact > mechanism, but the async memcg reclaim feature has value in itself and > should not have to wait until this second step is all figured out. > > Would this be acceptable? > It's okay for me. I'll change the order patches and merge patches from the core parts. 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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>