On Wed 11 Mar 2009 21:04, KOSAKI Motohiro pondered: > Hi > > > >> Page reclaim shouldn't be even attempting to reclaim or write back > > >> ramfs pagecache pages - reclaim can't possibly do anything with > > >> these pages! > > >> > > >> Arguably those pages shouldn't be on the LRU at all, but we haven't > > >> done that yet. > > >> > > >> Now, my problem is that I can't 100% be sure that we _ever_ > > >> implemented this properly. ?I _think_ we did, in which case > > >> we later broke it. ?If we've always been (stupidly) trying > > >> to pageout these pages then OK, I guess your patch is a > > >> suitable 2.6.29 stopgap. > > > > > > OK, I can't find any code anywhere in which we excluded ramfs pages > > > from consideration by page reclaim. ?How dumb. > > > > The ramfs considers it in just CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU case > > It that case, ramfs_get_inode calls mapping_set_unevictable. > > So, page reclaim can exclude ramfs pages by page_evictable. > > It's problem . > > Currently, CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU can't use on nommu machine > because nobody of vmscan folk havbe nommu machine. > > Yes, it is very stupid reason. _very_ welcome to tester! :)
As always - if you (or any kernel developer) would like a noMMU machine to test on - please send me a private email. _______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by [email protected] To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
