* Christoph Lameter <c...@linux-foundation.org> [2010-02-19 09:51:12]:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> > >> zone_reclaim. The others back off and try the next zone in the zonelist
> > >> instead. I'm not sure what the original intention was but most likely it
> > >> was to prevent too many parallel reclaimers in the same zone potentially
> > >> dumping out way more data than necessary.
> > >
> > > Yes it was to prevent concurrency slowing down reclaim. At that time the
> > > number of processors per NUMA node was 2 or so. The number of pages that
> > > are reclaimed is limited to avoid tossing too many page cache pages.
> > >
> >
> > That is interesting, I always thought it was to try and free page
> > cache first. For example with zone->min_unmapped_pages, if
> > zone_pagecache_reclaimable is greater than unmapped pages, we start
> > reclaim the cached pages first. The min_unmapped_pages almost sounds
> > like the higher level watermark - or am I misreading the code.
>
> Indeed the purpose is to free *old* page cache pages.
>
> The min_unmapped_pages is to protect a mininum of the page cache pages /
> fs metadata from zone reclaim so that ongoing file I/O is not impacted.
Thanks for the explanation!
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
