On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:27:22 +0200
Michal Hocko [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu 18-08-11 08:52:33, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:35:50 +0200
Michal Hocko [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed 17-08-11 09:54:05, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:50:55 +0200

quoted

- mem_cgroup_force_empty asks for reclaiming all pages. I guess it should be
  OK but will have to think about it some more.

force_empty/rmdir() is allowed to be stopped by Ctrl-C. I think passing res->usage
is overkilling.

So, how many pages should be reclaimed then?

How about (1 << (MAX_ORDER-1))/loop ?

Hmm, I am not sure I see any benefit. We want to reclaim all those
pages why shouldn't we do it in one batch? If we use a value based on
MAX_ORDER then we make a bigger chance that force_empty fails for big
cgroups (e.g. with a lot of page cache).

Why bigger chance to fail ? retry counter is decreased only when we cannot
make any reclaim. The number passed here is not problem against the faiulre.

I don't like very long vmscan which cannot be stopped by Ctrl-C.

Anyway, if we want to mimic the previous behavior then we should use
something like nr_nodes * SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX (the above value would be
sufficient for up to 32 nodes).

agreed.

Thanks,
-Kame


--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>