[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101022045554.GA17073@localhost>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:55:54 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: comment too_many_isolated()
Comment "Why it's doing so" rather than "What it does"
as proposed by Andrew Morton.
Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- linux-next.orig/mm/vmscan.c 2010-10-19 09:29:44.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/mm/vmscan.c 2010-10-19 10:21:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -1142,7 +1142,11 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page)
}
/*
- * Are there way too many processes in the direct reclaim path already?
+ * A direct reclaimer may isolate SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages from the LRU list and
+ * then get resheduled. When there are massive number of tasks doing page
+ * allocation, such sleeping direct reclaimers may keep piling up on each CPU,
+ * the LRU list will go small and be scanned faster than necessary, leading to
+ * unnecessary swapping, thrashing and OOM.
*/
static int too_many_isolated(struct zone *zone, int file,
struct scan_control *sc)
--
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