On Thu 13-12-12 17:14:13, Ying Han wrote:
[...]
> I haven't tried this patch set yet. Before I am doing that, I am
> curious whether changing the target reclaim to be consistent with
> global reclaim something worthy to consider based my last reply:
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 53dcde9..3f158c5 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1911,20 +1911,6 @@ static void shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
> struct scan_control *sc)
>
> shrink_lruvec(lruvec, sc);
>
> - /*
> - * Limit reclaim has historically picked one memcg and
> - * scanned it with decreasing priority levels until
> - * nr_to_reclaim had been reclaimed. This priority
> - * cycle is thus over after a single memcg.
> - *
> - * Direct reclaim and kswapd, on the other hand, have
> - * to scan all memory cgroups to fulfill the overall
> - * scan target for the zone.
> - */
> - if (!global_reclaim(sc)) {
> - mem_cgroup_iter_break(root, memcg);
> - break;
> - }
> memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(root, memcg, &reclaim);
This wouldn't work because you would over-reclaim proportionally to the
number of groups in the hierarchy.
> } while (memcg);
> }
>
> --Ying
--
Michal Hocko
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>