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

[Rik van Riel]

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
> prepare_slowpath.
>
> 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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/