[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110518095720.GQ5279@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 10:57:20 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: minchan.kim@...il.com, James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com,
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 Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:26:09AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >Lets see;
> >
> >shrink_page_list() only applies if inactive pages were isolated
> > which in turn may not happen if all_unreclaimable is set in
> > shrink_zones(). If for whatver reason, all_unreclaimable is
> > set on all zones, we can miss calling cond_resched().
> >
> >shrink_slab only applies if we are reclaiming slab pages. If the first
> > shrinker returns -1, we do not call cond_resched(). If that
> > first shrinker is dcache and __GFP_FS is not set, direct
> > reclaimers will not shrink at all. However, if there are
> > enough of them running or if one of the other shrinkers
> > is running for a very long time, kswapd could be starved
> > acquiring the shrinker_rwsem and never reaching the
> > cond_resched().
>
> OK.
>
>
> >
> >balance_pgdat() only calls cond_resched if the zones are not
> > balanced. For a high-order allocation that is balanced, it
> > checks order-0 again. During that window, order-0 might have
> > become unbalanced so it loops again for order-0 and returns
> > that was reclaiming for order-0 to kswapd(). It can then find
> > that a caller has rewoken kswapd for a high-order and re-enters
> > balance_pgdat() without ever have called cond_resched().
>
> Then, Shouldn't balance_pgdat() call cond_resched() unconditionally?
> The problem is NOT 100% cpu consumption. if kswapd will sleep, other
> processes need to reclaim old pages. The problem is, kswapd doesn't
> invoke context switch and other tasks hang-up.
>
Which the shrink_slab patch does (either version). What's the gain from
sprinkling more cond_resched() around? If you think there is, submit
another pair of patches (include patch 1 from this series) but I'm not
seeing the advantage myself.
>
> >While it appears unlikely, there are bad conditions which can result
> >in cond_resched() being avoided.
> >
>
>
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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