[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110516141654.2728f05a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:16:54 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Raghavendra D Prabhu <raghu.prabhu13@...il.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: vmscan: If kswapd has been running too long,
allow it to sleep
On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:06:57 +0100
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> 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>
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> ---
> 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;
> +
> /* If a direct reclaimer woke kswapd within HZ/10, it's premature */
> if (remaining)
> return true;
I'm a bit worried by this one.
Do we really fully understand why kswapd is continuously running like
this? The changelog makes me think "no" ;)
Given that the page-allocating process is madly reclaiming pages in
direct reclaim (yes?) and that kswapd is madly reclaiming pages on a
different CPU, we should pretty promptly get into a situation where
kswapd can suspend itself. But that obviously isn't happening. So
what *is* going on?
Secondly, taking an up-to-100ms sleep in response to a need_resched()
seems pretty savage and I suspect it risks undesirable side-effects. A
plain old cond_resched() would be more cautious. But presumably
kswapd() is already running cond_resched() pretty frequently, so why
didn't that work?
--
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