[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1305519711.4806.7.camel@mulgrave.site>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 08:21:51 +0400
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: mgorman@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
colin.king@...onical.com, raghu.prabhu13@...il.com, jack@...e.cz,
chris.mason@...cle.com, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org,
riel@...hat.com, hannes@...xchg.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: vmscan: If kswapd has been running too long,
allow it to sleep
On Sun, 2011-05-15 at 19:27 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> (2011/05/13 23:03), Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Under constant allocation pressure, kswapd can be in the situation where
> > sleeping_prematurely() will always return true even if kswapd has been
> > running a long time. Check if kswapd needs to be scheduled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman<mgorman@...e.de>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index af24d1e..4d24828 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -2251,6 +2251,10 @@ static bool sleeping_prematurely(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, long remaining,
> > unsigned long balanced = 0;
> > bool all_zones_ok = true;
> >
> > + /* If kswapd has been running too long, just sleep */
> > + if (need_resched())
> > + return false;
> > +
>
> Hmm... I don't like this patch so much. because this code does
>
> - don't sleep if kswapd got context switch at shrink_inactive_list
This isn't entirely true: need_resched() will be false, so we'll follow
the normal path for determining whether to sleep or not, in effect
leaving the current behaviour unchanged.
> - sleep if kswapd didn't
This also isn't entirely true: whether need_resched() is true at this
point depends on a whole lot more that whether we did a context switch
in shrink_inactive. It mostly depends on how long we've been running
without giving up the CPU. Generally that will mean we've been round
the shrinker loop hundreds to thousands of times without sleeping.
> It seems to be semi random behavior.
Well, we have to do something. Chris Mason first suspected the hang was
a kswapd rescheduling problem a while ago. We tried putting
cond_rescheds() in several places in the vmscan code, but to no avail.
The need_resched() in sleeping_prematurely() seems to be about the best
option. The other option might be just to put a cond_resched() in
kswapd_try_to_sleep(), but that will really have about the same effect.
James
--
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