From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 23 May 2001 10:32:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 23 May 2001 10:32:45 -0400 Received: from humbolt.nl.linux.org ([131.211.28.48]:31249 "EHLO humbolt.nl.linux.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 23 May 2001 10:32:29 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Marcelo Tosatti , Rik van Riel , "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: write drop behind effect on active scanning Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:33:44 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] Cc: lkml , linux-mm@kvack.org In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0105231633440L.06233@starship> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 23 May 2001 09:33, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > Hi, > > I just noticed a "bad" effect of write drop behind yesterday during > some tests. > > The problem is that we deactivate written pages, thus making the > inactive list become pretty big (full of unfreeable pages) under > write intensive IO workloads. > > So what happens is that we don't do _any_ aging on the active list, > and in the meantime the inactive list (which should have "easily" > freeable pages) is full of locked pages. > > I'm going to fix this one by replacing "deactivate_page(page)" to > "ClearPageReferenced(page)" in generic_file_write(). This way the > written pages are aged faster but we avoid the bad effect just > described. > > Any comments on the fix ? page->age = 0 ? -- Daniel