Re: [RFC] Remove temp_priority

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Martin Bligh wrote:
> This is not tested yet. What do you think?
>
> This patch removes temp_priority, as it is racy. We're setting
> prev_priority from it, and yet temp_priority could have been
> set back to DEF_PRIORITY by another reclaimer.

I like it. I wonder if we should get kswapd to stick its priority
into the zone at the point where zone_watermark_ok becomes true,
rather than setting all zones to the lowest priority? That would
require a bit more logic though I guess.

For that matter (going off the topic a bit), I wonder if
try_to_free_pages should have a watermark check there too? This
might help reduce the latency issue you brought up where one process
has reclaimed a lot of pages, but another isn't making any progress
and has to go through the full priority range? Maybe that's
statistically pretty unlikely?

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/