From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:22:17 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Drop PageReclaim() In-Reply-To: <20070208151341.7e27ca59.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <20070208140338.971b3f53.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070208142431.eb81ae70.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070208143746.79c000f5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070208151341.7e27ca59.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Hugh Dickins , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > I expect that'll be OK for pages which were written back by the vm scanner. > But it also means that pages which were written back by > pdflush/balance_dirty_pages/fsync/etc will now all also be eligible for > rotation. ie: the vast majority of written-back pages. > > Whether that will make much difference to page aging I don't know. But it > will cause more lru->lock traffic. I'd rather avoid more lru lock traffic. Could we simply drop the rotation? Writeback is typically a relatively long process. The page should have made some progress through the inactive list by the time the write is complete. One additional issue that is raised by the writeback pages remaining on the LRU lists is that we can get into the same livelock situation as with mlocked pages if we keep on skipping over writeback pages. However, the system is already slow due to us waiting for I/O. I guess we just do not notice. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org