On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:23:35 +0000 mel@xxxxxxxxx (Mel Gorman) wrote: > On (01/11/07 10:10), Badari Pulavarty didst pronounce: > > > > Hmpf, my first reply had a paragraph about the block device inode > > > pages, I noticed the phrase file data pages and deleted it ;) > > > > > > But, for the metadata buffers there's not much we can do. They > > > are included in a bunch of different lists and the patch would > > > be non-trivial. > > > > Unfortunately, these buffer pages are spread all around making > > those sections of memory non-removable. Of course, one can use > > ZONE_MOVABLE to make sure to guarantee the remove. But I am > > hoping we could easily group all these allocations and minimize > > spreading them around. Mel ? > > The grow_dev_page() pages should be reclaimable even though migration > is not supported for those pages? They were marked movable as it was > useful for lumpy reclaim taking back pages for hugepage allocations > and the like. Would it make sense for memory unremove to attempt > migration first and reclaim second? > In this case, reiserfs has the page pinned while it is doing journal magic. Not sure if ext3 has the same issues. -chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
