On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Chintan Pandya wrote: > I don't mean to divert the thread too much. But just one suggestion offered > by Harshad. > > Why can't we stop invoking more of a KSM scanner thread when we are > saturating from savings ? But again, to check whether savings are saturated > or not, we may still want to rely upon timers and we have to wake the CPUs up > from IDLE state. I agree that it should make sense for KSM to slow down when it sees it's making no progress (though that would depart from the pages_to_scan and sleep_millisecs prescription - perhaps could be tied to sleep_millisecs 0). But not stop. That's the problem we're mainly concerned with here: to save power we need it to stop, but then how to wake up, without putting nasty hooks in hot paths for a minority interest? I don't see an answer to that above. Hugh -- 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>