On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 05:30:31PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:27:14PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:11:22PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > The all_unreclaimable logic is related to the number of pages scanned
> > > but currently pages skipped
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 05:30:31PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:27:14PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:11:22PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > The all_unreclaimable logic is related to the number of pages scanned
> > > but currently pages skipped
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:27:14PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:11:22PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > The all_unreclaimable logic is related to the number of pages scanned
> > but currently pages skipped contributes to pages scanned. That is one
> > possibility. The other
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 03:27:14PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:11:22PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > The all_unreclaimable logic is related to the number of pages scanned
> > but currently pages skipped contributes to pages scanned. That is one
> > possibility. The other
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:11:22PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> The all_unreclaimable logic is related to the number of pages scanned
> but currently pages skipped contributes to pages scanned. That is one
> possibility. The other is that if all pages scanned are skipped then the
> OOM killer can
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 01:11:22PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> The all_unreclaimable logic is related to the number of pages scanned
> but currently pages skipped contributes to pages scanned. That is one
> possibility. The other is that if all pages scanned are skipped then the
> OOM killer can
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 03:28:37PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > That would be appreciated.
>
> I make an artificial test case and test this series by using next tree
> (next-20160713) and found a regression.
>
> My test setup is:
>
> memory: 2048 mb
> movablecore: 1500 mb (imitates highmem
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 03:28:37PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > That would be appreciated.
>
> I make an artificial test case and test this series by using next tree
> (next-20160713) and found a regression.
>
> My test setup is:
>
> memory: 2048 mb
> movablecore: 1500 mb (imitates highmem
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 09:48:41AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/14/2016 08:28 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:05:32AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >>On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:28:52AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:48:08AM +0100, Mel Gorman
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 09:48:41AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/14/2016 08:28 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:05:32AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >>On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:28:52AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:48:08AM +0100, Mel Gorman
On 07/14/2016 08:28 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:05:32AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:28:52AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:48:08AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:12:12AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
@@
On 07/14/2016 08:28 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:05:32AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:28:52AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:48:08AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:12:12AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
@@
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:05:32AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:28:52AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:48:08AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:12:12AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > > @@ -1402,6 +1406,11 @@ static
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:05:32AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:28:52AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:48:08AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:12:12AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > > @@ -1402,6 +1406,11 @@ static
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:28:52AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:48:08AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:12:12AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > @@ -1402,6 +1406,11 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned
> > > > long nr_to_scan,
> > >
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:28:52AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:48:08AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:12:12AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > @@ -1402,6 +1406,11 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned
> > > > long nr_to_scan,
> > >
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:48:08AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:12:12AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > @@ -1402,6 +1406,11 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned
> > > long nr_to_scan,
> > >
> > > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLRU(page), page);
> > >
> >
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:48:08AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:12:12AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > @@ -1402,6 +1406,11 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned
> > > long nr_to_scan,
> > >
> > > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLRU(page), page);
> > >
> >
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:12:12AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > @@ -1402,6 +1406,11 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long
> > nr_to_scan,
> >
> > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLRU(page), page);
> >
> > + if (page_zonenum(page) > sc->reclaim_idx) {
> > +
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 10:12:12AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > @@ -1402,6 +1406,11 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long
> > nr_to_scan,
> >
> > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageLRU(page), page);
> >
> > + if (page_zonenum(page) > sc->reclaim_idx) {
> > +
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:01:12PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> This patch makes reclaim decisions on a per-node basis. A reclaimer knows
> what zone is required by the allocation request and skips pages from
> higher zones. In many cases this will be ok because it's a GFP_HIGHMEM
> request of
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:01:12PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> This patch makes reclaim decisions on a per-node basis. A reclaimer knows
> what zone is required by the allocation request and skips pages from
> higher zones. In many cases this will be ok because it's a GFP_HIGHMEM
> request of
>
> This patch makes reclaim decisions on a per-node basis. A reclaimer knows
> what zone is required by the allocation request and skips pages from
> higher zones. In many cases this will be ok because it's a GFP_HIGHMEM
> request of some description. On 64-bit, ZONE_DMA32 requests will cause
>
> This patch makes reclaim decisions on a per-node basis. A reclaimer knows
> what zone is required by the allocation request and skips pages from
> higher zones. In many cases this will be ok because it's a GFP_HIGHMEM
> request of some description. On 64-bit, ZONE_DMA32 requests will cause
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 06:08:27PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > @@ -2561,17 +2580,23 @@ static void shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist,
> > struct scan_control *sc)
> > * highmem pages could be pinning lowmem pages storing buffer_heads
> > */
> > orig_mask = sc->gfp_mask;
> >
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 06:08:27PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > @@ -2561,17 +2580,23 @@ static void shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist,
> > struct scan_control *sc)
> > * highmem pages could be pinning lowmem pages storing buffer_heads
> > */
> > orig_mask = sc->gfp_mask;
> >
> @@ -2561,17 +2580,23 @@ static void shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist,
> struct scan_control *sc)
>* highmem pages could be pinning lowmem pages storing buffer_heads
>*/
> orig_mask = sc->gfp_mask;
> - if (buffer_heads_over_limit)
> + if
> @@ -2561,17 +2580,23 @@ static void shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist,
> struct scan_control *sc)
>* highmem pages could be pinning lowmem pages storing buffer_heads
>*/
> orig_mask = sc->gfp_mask;
> - if (buffer_heads_over_limit)
> + if
This patch makes reclaim decisions on a per-node basis. A reclaimer knows
what zone is required by the allocation request and skips pages from
higher zones. In many cases this will be ok because it's a GFP_HIGHMEM
request of some description. On 64-bit, ZONE_DMA32 requests will cause
some
This patch makes reclaim decisions on a per-node basis. A reclaimer knows
what zone is required by the allocation request and skips pages from
higher zones. In many cases this will be ok because it's a GFP_HIGHMEM
request of some description. On 64-bit, ZONE_DMA32 requests will cause
some
This patch makes reclaim decisions on a per-node basis. A reclaimer knows
what zone is required by the allocation request and skips pages from
higher zones. In many cases this will be ok because it's a GFP_HIGHMEM
request of some description. On 64-bit, ZONE_DMA32 requests will cause
some
This patch makes reclaim decisions on a per-node basis. A reclaimer knows
what zone is required by the allocation request and skips pages from
higher zones. In many cases this will be ok because it's a GFP_HIGHMEM
request of some description. On 64-bit, ZONE_DMA32 requests will cause
some
32 matches
Mail list logo
