Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Rik van Riel
Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 7:53 am

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:24:07 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:


I suspect we won't be needing that code.  The SEQ replacement for
swap backed pages might reduce the number of pages that need to
be scanned to a reasonable number.

Remember, steady states are not a big problem with the current VM.
It's the sudden burst of scanning that happens when the VM decides
that it should start swapping (and every anonymous page is referenced)
that kills large systems.

-- 
All Rights Reversed
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages, Rik van Riel, (Wed Dec 19, 6:45 am)
Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages, Peter Zijlstra, (Wed Dec 19, 7:24 am)
Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages, Rik van Riel, (Wed Dec 19, 7:53 am)
Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages, Lee Schermerhorn, (Wed Dec 19, 9:04 am)
Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages, Lee Schermerhorn, (Wed Dec 19, 9:08 am)
Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages, Rik van Riel, (Thu Dec 20, 1:56 pm)
Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages, Nick Piggin, (Fri Dec 21, 3:52 am)
Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages, Nick Piggin, (Sun Dec 23, 5:22 am)
Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages, Rik van Riel, (Sun Dec 23, 6:00 pm)