Re: [patch 3/3] mm: page_alloc: fair zone allocator policy

From: Rik van Riel
Date: Thu Aug 01 2013 - 00:32:31 EST

On 07/31/2013 10:56 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:

Yes, it's not really slow path because it could return to normal status
without calling significant slow functions by reset batchcount of

I think it's tradeoff and I am biased your approach although we would
lose a little performance because fair aging would recover the loss by
fastpath's overhead. But who knows? Someone has a concern.

So we should mention about such problems.

If the atomic operation in the fast path turns out to be a problem,
I suspect we may be able to fix it by using per-cpu counters, and
consolidating those every once in a while.

However, it may be good to see whether there is a problem in the
first place, before adding complexity.

All rights reversed
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at