From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1751787AbWFWRWr@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751787AbWFWRWr (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:22:47 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751791AbWFWRWr
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:22:47 -0400
Received: from amsfep17-int.chello.nl ([213.46.243.15]:7139 "EHLO
	amsfep11-int.chello.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751787AbWFWRWr (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:22:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: tracking shared dirty pages -v10
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
       Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com>,
       Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606230955230.6265@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
References: <20060619175243.24655.76005.sendpatchset@lappy>
	 <20060619175253.24655.96323.sendpatchset@lappy>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606222126310.26805@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
	 <1151019590.15744.144.camel@lappy>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606222305210.6483@g5.osdl.org>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606230759480.19782@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606230955230.6265@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:22:18 +0200
Message-Id: <1151083338.30819.28.camel@lappy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 10:00 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> Also Peter has made the tracking configurable. So there is a way
> to switch it off if it is harmful for some situations.

Oh?

> You mean anonymous pages? Anonymous pages are always dirty unless
> you consider swap and we currently do not take account of dirty anonymous 
> pages. With swap we already have performance problems and maybe there are
> additional issues to fix in that area. But these are secondary.

I intent to make swap over NFS work next.