[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4841240A.1000008@goop.org>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:10:18 +0100
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5 of 5] xen: Avoid allocations causing swap activity on
the resume path
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 10:50:40 +0100 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>
>> Does __GFP_HIGH necessarily mean that it won't try to
>> do IO to push pages out?
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> __GFP_FS: may enter filesystems
> __GFP_IO: may perform IO
>
> __GFP_IO also means "may do swapout". Even when swap is on a regular
> file. This is because we do all the fs-related operations up-front
> during swapon. So at alloc_pages()-time we can go direct-to-disk-blocks.
>
> So I assume for this application you'll need GFP_NOIO. That's still
> heaps better than GFP_ATOMIC, because it can sleep and wait for kswapd
> to do stuff, and it can reclaim clean pagecache and clean swapcache.
>
OK, I'll respin with GFP_NOIO.
> Whether you should also add __GFP_HIGH to cause the page allocation to
> bite harder into the page reserves is unclear to me, sorry.
>
Well, if the allocation fails the machine is dead in the water, because
it probably can't go on without its devices. I think it's worth eating
to the reserves to avoid that. (I'll have a close look to only add it
to allocations which are really unrecoverable if they fail.)
Thanks,
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists