From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: "MinChan Kim" <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, "Rik van Riel" <riel@redhat.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Lee Schermerhorn" <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org,
"Takenori Nagano" <t-nagano@ah.jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] prevent incorrect oom under split_lru
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:08:59 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080625150141.D845.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <28c262360806242259k3ac308c4n7cee29b72456e95b@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Kim-san,
> >> So, if priority==0, We should try to reclaim all page for prevent OOM.
> >
> > You are absolutely right. Good catch.
>
> I have a concern about application latency.
> If lru list have many pages, it take a very long time to scan pages.
> More system have many ram, More many time to scan pages.
No problem.
priority==0 indicate emergency.
it doesn't happend on typical workload.
> Of course I know this is trade-off between memory efficiency VS latency.
> But In embedded, some application think latency is more important
> thing than memory efficiency.
> We need some mechanism to cut off scanning time.
>
> I think Takenori Nagano's "memory reclaim more efficiently patch" is
> proper to reduce application latency in this case If we modify some
> code.
I think this is off-topic.
but Yes.
both my page reclaim throttle and nagano-san's patch provide
reclaim cut off mechanism.
and more off-topic,
nagano-san's patch improve only priority==12.
So, typical embedded doesn't improve so big because
embedded system does't have so large memory.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-25 6:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-24 8:31 KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-06-24 13:28 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-25 5:59 ` MinChan Kim
2008-06-25 6:08 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2008-06-25 6:56 ` MinChan Kim
2008-06-25 6:58 ` MinChan Kim
2008-06-25 7:29 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-06-25 7:37 ` MinChan Kim
2008-06-25 12:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-06-25 13:05 ` MinChan Kim
2008-06-26 1:49 ` Takenori Nagano
2008-06-26 4:37 ` MinChan Kim
2008-06-26 5:24 ` Takenori Nagano
2008-06-26 6:37 ` MinChan Kim
2008-06-26 8:05 ` Takenori Nagano
2008-06-26 0:36 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080625150141.D845.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=t-nagano@ah.jp.nec.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®