On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:27:01PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > I'm not going to go with it for now because buffer_heads_over_limit is not > > necessarily a problem unless lowmem is factor. We don't want background > > reclaim to go ahead unnecessarily just because buffer_heads_over_limit. > > It could be distinguished by only forcing reclaim to go ahead on systems > > with highmem. > > If you don't think it's a problem, I don't want to insist on it because I > don't > have any report/workload right now. Instead, please write some comment in > there > for others to understand why kswapd is okay to ignore buffer_heads_over_limit > unlike direct reclaim. Such non-symmetric behavior is really hard to follow > without any description.
Ok, I'll add a patch later in the series that addresses the issue. Currently it's called "mm, vmscan: Have kswapd reclaim from all zones if reclaiming and buffer_heads_over_limit". -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
