On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:54:45 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I wonder this should go stable...
hmm, IMHO, it's not necessary just because there have been no bug reports
about this bug.
> ==
> From e2565de1c764057b75b4d9a1674d163b6c873cdd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:54:32 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Fix softlimit wrong check of noswap
>
> Now, hierarchical reclaim doesn't make swap if memory's limit is
> equal to mem+swap limit. Because if reclaim does swap-out,
> it still hits mem+swap limit and there will be no progress.
> WHEN HITTING HARD LIMIT.
>
> When it comes to softlimit, it works for kswapd. noswap is nonsense.
>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
If we implement "softlimit for memsw" in future, we might change the check again,
but it's another story.
Acked-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.
> ---
> mm/memcontrol.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 3baddcb..06825be 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -1663,7 +1663,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem,
> excess = res_counter_soft_limit_excess(&root_mem->res) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> /* If memsw_is_minimum==1, swap-out is of-no-use. */
> - if (root_mem->memsw_is_minimum)
> + if (!check_soft && root_mem->memsw_is_minimum)
> noswap = true;
>
> while (1) {
> --
> 1.7.4.1
>
>
--
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>