On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 05:08:18PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Sat 28-03-15 10:53:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > [...] > > Alternatively the thing hocko suggests is an utter fail too. You cannot > > stuff that into hardirq context, that's insane. > > I guess you are referring to > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/127569, right? > > Why cannot we do something like refresh_cpu_vm_stats from the IRQ > context? Especially the first zone stat part. Big machines have big zone counts. There are machines with >200 nodes. Although with the current trend of bigger nodes, the number of nodes seems to come down as well. Still. > The per-cpu pagesets is > more costly and it would need a special treatment, alright. A simple > way would be to splice the lists from the per-cpu context and then free > those pages from the kthread context. > > I am still wondering why those two things were squashed into a single > place. Why kswapd is not doing the pcp cleanup? Probably because they could be. The problem with kswapd is that its per node, not per cpu. -- 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>