[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DD316C7.60003@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 09:45:59 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: mgorman@...e.de
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, minchan.kim@...il.com,
colin.king@...onical.com, James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.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] mm: vmscan: Correctly check if reclaimer should schedule
during shrink_slab
(2011/05/18 1:15), Mel Gorman wrote:
> It has been reported on some laptops that kswapd is consuming large
> amounts of CPU and not being scheduled when SLUB is enabled during
> large amounts of file copying. It is expected that this is due to
> kswapd missing every cond_resched() point because;
>
> shrink_page_list() calls cond_resched() 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().
>
> 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 it 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 calling cond_resched().
>
> shrink_slab only calls cond_resched() if we are reclaiming slab
> pages. If there are a large number of direct reclaimers, the
> shrinker_rwsem can be contended and prevent kswapd calling
> cond_resched().
>
> This patch modifies the shrink_slab() case. If the semaphore is
> contended, the caller will still check cond_resched(). After each
> successful call into a shrinker, the check for cond_resched() is
> still necessary in case one shrinker call is particularly slow.
>
> This patch replaces
> mm-vmscan-if-kswapd-has-been-running-too-long-allow-it-to-sleep.patch
> in -mm.
>
> [mgorman@...e.de: Preserve call to cond_resched after each call into shrinker]
> From: Minchan Kim<minchan.kim@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman<mgorman@...e.de>
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
--
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