On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:07:04AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:28:44PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:53:36PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On 12/12/2012 04:43 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > >dc0422c "mm: vmscan: only evict file pages when we have plenty" makes > > You are using some internal tree for that commit. Now that it's upstream > it is commit e9868505987a03a26a3979f27b82911ccc003752. > > > > >a point of not going for anonymous memory while there is still enough > > > >inactive cache around. > > > > > > > >The check was added only for global reclaim, but it is just as useful > > > >for memory cgroup reclaim. > > > > > > > >Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >--- > > > > mm/vmscan.c | 19 ++++++++++--------- > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > I believe the if() block should be moved to AFTER > > > the check where we make sure we actually have enough > > > file pages. > > > > You are absolutely right, this makes more sense. Although I'd figure > > the impact would be small because if there actually is that little > > file cache, it won't be there for long with force-file scanning... :-) > > > > Does it actually make sense? Lets take the global reclaim case. > > <stupidity snipped> I made a stupid mistake that Michal Hocko pointed out to me. The goto out means that it should be fine either way. > I'm not being super thorough because I'm not quite sure this is the right > patch if the motivation is for memcg to use the same logic. Instead of > moving this if, why do you not estimate "free" for the memcg based on the > hard limit and current usage? > I'm still curious about this part. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>