Re: [RFC][PATCH] a bit improvement of ZONE_DMA page reclaim

2008-01-18 Thread KOSAKI Motohiro
Hi Andrew, > > > on X86, ZONE_DMA is very very small. > > > It is often no used at all. > > > > In that case page-reclaim is supposed to set all_unreclaimable and > > basically ignores the zone altogether until it looks like something might > > have changed. > > > > Is that code not working? (

Re: [RFC][PATCH] a bit improvement of ZONE_DMA page reclaim

2008-01-17 Thread KOSAKI Motohiro
Hi Andrew > > on X86, ZONE_DMA is very very small. > > It is often no used at all. > > In that case page-reclaim is supposed to set all_unreclaimable and > basically ignores the zone altogether until it looks like something might > have changed. > > Is that code not working? (quite possible).

Re: [RFC][PATCH] a bit improvement of ZONE_DMA page reclaim

2008-01-17 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:34:33 +0900 KOSAKI Motohiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > on X86, ZONE_DMA is very very small. > It is often no used at all. In that case page-reclaim is supposed to set all_unreclaimable and basically ignores the zone altogether until it looks like something might

[RFC][PATCH] a bit improvement of ZONE_DMA page reclaim

2008-01-17 Thread KOSAKI Motohiro
Hi on X86, ZONE_DMA is very very small. It is often no used at all. Unfortunately, when NR_ACTIVE==0, NR_INACTIVE==0, shrink_zone() try to reclaim 1 page. because zone->nr_scan_active += (zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE) >> priority) + 1;