On 03/19/2012 01:58 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Rik van Riel wrote:
On 03/19/2012 05:18 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
This patch reset reclaim mode in shrink_active_list() to
RECLAIM_MODE_SINGLE | RECLAIM_MODE_ASYNC.
(sync/async sign is used only in shrink_page_list and does not affect
shrink_active_list)
Currenly shrink_active_list() sometimes works in lumpy-reclaim mode,
if RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM left over from earlier
shrink_inactive_list().
Meanwhile, in age_active_anon() sc->reclaim_mode is totally zero.
So, current behavior is too complex and confusing, all this looks
like bug.
In general, shrink_active_list() populate inactive list for next
shrink_inactive_list().
Lumpy shring_inactive_list() isolate pages around choosen one from
both active and
inactive lists. So, there no reasons for lumpy-isolation in
shrink_active_list()
Proposed-by: Hugh Dickins<hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/15/583
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Confirmed, this is already done by commit
26f5f2f1aea7687565f55c20d69f0f91aa644fb8 in the
linux-next tree.
No, your patch fix this problem only if CONFIG_COMPACTION=y
True.
It was done that way, because Mel explained to me that deactivating
a whole chunk of active pages at once is a desired feature that makes
it more likely that a whole contiguous chunk of pages will eventually
reach the end of the inactive list.
--
All rights reversed
--
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>