On Fri 10-06-11 21:24:51, Hiroyuki Kamezawa wrote:
> 2011/6/10 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>:
> > On Fri 10-06-11 18:59:52, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
[...]
> >> @@ -1670,8 +1670,7 @@ static int mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim(struct mem_cgroup *root_mem,
> >> victim = mem_cgroup_select_victim(root_mem);
> >> if (victim == root_mem) {
> >> loop++;
> >> - if (loop >= 1)
> >> - drain_all_stock_async();
> >> + drain_all_stock_async(root_mem);
> >> if (loop >= 2) {
> >> /*
> >> * If we have not been able to reclaim
> >
> > This still doesn't prevent from direct reclaim even though we have freed
> > enough pages from pcp caches. Should I post it as a separate patch?
> >
>
> yes. please in different thread. Maybe moving this out of loop will
> make sense. (And I have a cleanup patch for this loop. I'll do that
> when I post it later, anyway)
OK, I will wait for your cleanup then.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9
Czech Republic
--
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>