[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100315130935.f8b0a2d7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:09:35 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Avoid the use of congestion_wait under zone
pressure
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:34:50 +0100
Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> c) If direct reclaim did reasonable progress in try_to_free but did not
> get a page, AND there is no write in flight at all then let it try again
> to free up something.
> This could be extended by some kind of max retry to avoid some weird
> looping cases as well.
>
> d) Another way might be as easy as letting congestion_wait return
> immediately if there are no outstanding writes - this would keep the
> behavior for cases with write and avoid the "running always in full
> timeout" issue without writes.
They're pretty much equivalent and would work. But there are two
things I still don't understand:
1: Why is direct reclaim calling congestion_wait() at all? If no
writes are going on there's lots of clean pagecache around so reclaim
should trivially succeed. What's preventing it from doing so?
2: This is, I think, new behaviour. A regression. What caused it?
--
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