Re: [RFC] Tracking mlocked pages and moving them off the LRU

[Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>]

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Do we actually need NR_MLOCK?  Page reclaim tends to care more about the
> size of the LRUs and doesn't have much dependency on ->present_pages,

Yes, we'd be fine with general reclaim I think. But the calculation of the 
dirty ratio based on ZVCs would need it if we take the mlocked pages off. 
Otherwise we may have dirty ratios > 100%.

> I guess we could use NR_MLOCK for writeback threshold calculations, to
> force writeback earlier if there's a lot of mlocked memory in the affected
> zones.  But that code isn't zone-aware anyway, and we don't know how to make
> it zone aware in any sane fashion and making it cpuset-aware isn't very
> interesting or useful..

Exclusion or inclusion of NR_MLOCK number is straightforward for the dirty 
ratio calcuations. global_page_state(NR_MLOCK) f.e. would get us totals on 
mlocked pages per zone. node_page_state(NR_MLOCK) gives a node specific 
number of mlocked pages. The nice thing about ZVCs is that it allows
easy access to counts on different levels.

> So..  Why do we want NR_MLOCK?

Rik also had some uses in mind for allocation?
-
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/