[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091026222159.2F72.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:42:55 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@....fi>,
Mohamed Abbas <mohamed.abbas@...el.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@...net.com>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@...ck.org\"" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] page allocator: Always wake kswapd when restarting an allocation attempt after direct reclaim failed
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index bf72055..5a27896 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1899,6 +1899,12 @@ rebalance:
> > if (should_alloc_retry(gfp_mask, order, pages_reclaimed)) {
> > /* Wait for some write requests to complete then retry */
> > congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * While we wait congestion wait, Amount of free memory can
> > + * be changed dramatically. Thus, we kick kswapd again.
> > + */
> > + wake_all_kswapd(order, zonelist, high_zoneidx);
> > goto rebalance;
> > }
> >
>
> We're blocking to finish writeback of the directly reclaimed memory, why
> do we need to wake kswapd afterwards?
the same reason of "goto restart" case. that's my intention.
if following scenario occur, it is equivalent that we didn't call wake_all_kswapd().
1. call congestion_wait()
2. kswapd reclaimed lots memory and sleep
3. another task consume lots memory
4. wakeup from congestion_wait()
IOW, if we falled into __alloc_pages_slowpath(), we naturally expect
next page_alloc() don't fall into slowpath. however if kswapd end to
its work too early, this assumption isn't true.
Is this too pessimistic assumption?
--
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