[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091215084636.c7790658.minchan.kim@barrios-desktop>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:46:36 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, lwoodman@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, minchan.kim@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] Use io_schedule() instead schedule()
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:30:54 +0900 (JST)
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> All task sleeping point in vmscan (e.g. congestion_wait) use
> io_schedule. then shrink_zone_begin use it too.
>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 3562a2d..0880668 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1624,7 +1624,7 @@ static int shrink_zone_begin(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc)
> max_zone_concurrent_reclaimers)
> break;
>
> - schedule();
> + io_schedule();
Hmm. We have many cond_resched which is not io_schedule in vmscan.c.
In addition, if system doesn't have swap device space and out of page cache
due to heavy memory pressue, VM might scan & drop pages until priority is zero
or zone is unreclaimable.
I think it would be not a IO wait.
>
> /*
> * If other processes freed enough memory while we waited,
> --
> 1.6.5.2
>
>
>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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