RE: [PATCH -v2 -mm] add extra free kbytes tunable

[David Rientjes]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Satoru Moriya wrote:

> > I think the point was that extra_free_kbytes needs to be tuned to 
> > cover at least the amount of memory of the largest allocation burst
> 
> Right. In enterprise area, we strictly test the system we build
> again and again before we release it. In that situation, we can
> set extra_free_kbytes appropriately based on system's requirements
> and/or specifications etc.
> 

You would also need to guarantee that min_free_kbytes isn't subsequently 
changed because that would change the value that extra_free_kbytes would 
need to preserve the same exclusive access to memory that the rt threads 
would have without increasing it.

> I understand what you concern. But in some area such as banking,
> stock exchange, train/power/plant control sysemts etc this kind
> of tunable is welcomed because they can tune their systems at
> their own risk.
> 

You haven't tried the patch that increases the priority of kswapd when 
such a latency sensitive thread triggers background reclaim?
--
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/