On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:22:42 -0800 (PST) Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Now, a way out here is to remove lumpy reclaim (please). And make the > > > > problem not come back by promising to never call putback_lru_pages(lots > > > > of pages) (how do we do this?). > > > > > > We can very easily put a counter in it, doing a spin_unlock_irq every > > > time we hit the max. Nothing prevents that, it's just an excrescence > > > I'd have preferred to omit and have not today implemented. > > > > Yes. It's ultra-cautious, but perhaps we should do this at least until > > lumpy goes away. > > I don't think you'll accept my observations above as excuse to do > nothing, but please clarify which you think is more cautious. Should > I or should I not break up the isolating end in the same way as the > putting back? If we already have the latency problem at the isolate_lru_pages() stage then I suppose we can assume that nobody is noticing it, so we'll probably be OK. For a while. Someone will complain at some stage and we'll probably end up busting this work into chunks. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>