Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Christoph Lameter
Date: Friday, March 2, 2007 - 11:15 am

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:


The memory is likely in use but there is enough memory free in unmapped 
clean pagecache pages so that we occasionally are able to free pages. Then 
the app is reading more from disk replenishing that ...
Thus we are forever cycling through the LRU lists moving pages between 
the lists aging etc etc. Can lead to a livelock.


We have fixed the case in which we compile the kernel without swap. Then 
anonymous pages behave like mlocked pages. Did we do more than that?

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Mar 2, 10:23 am)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Mar 2, 11:15 am)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Mar 2, 12:31 pm)
[PATCH] : Optimizes timespec_trunc() , Eric Dumazet, (Fri Mar 2, 4:16 pm)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., William Lee Irwin III, (Fri Mar 2, 5:33 pm)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., William Lee Irwin III, (Fri Mar 2, 6:40 pm)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., William Lee Irwin III, (Fri Mar 2, 8:55 pm)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., William Lee Irwin III, (Fri Mar 2, 9:19 pm)
Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentatio ..., Christoph Lameter, (Sat Mar 3, 10:50 am)