[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110628125249.GX9396@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:52:49 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
P?draig Brady <P@...igbrady.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm: vmscan: Evaluate the watermarks against the
correct classzone
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 03:53:04PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> > When deciding if kswapd is sleeping prematurely, the classzone is
> > taken into account but this is different to what balance_pgdat() and
> > the allocator are doing. Specifically, the DMA zone will be checked
> > based on the classzone used when waking kswapd which could be for a
> > GFP_KERNEL or GFP_HIGHMEM request. The lowmem reserve limit kicks in,
> > the watermark is not met and kswapd thinks its sleeping prematurely
> > keeping kswapd awake in error.
>
>
> I thought it was intentional when you submitted a patch firstly.
It was, it also wasn't right.
> "Kswapd makes sure zones include enough free pages(ie, include reserve
> limit of above zones).
> But you seem to see DMA zone can't meet above requirement forever in
> some situation so that kswapd doesn't sleep.
> Right?
>
Right.
> >
> > Reported-and-tested-by: Pádraig Brady <P@...igBrady.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 9cebed1..a76b6cc2 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -2341,7 +2341,7 @@ static bool sleeping_prematurely(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, long remaining,
> > }
> >
> > if (!zone_watermark_ok_safe(zone, order, high_wmark_pages(zone),
> > - classzone_idx, 0))
> > + i, 0))
>
> Isn't it better to use 0 instead of i?
>
I considered it but went with i to compromise between making sure zones
included enough free pages without requiring that ZONE_DMA meet an
almost impossible requirement when under continual memory pressure.
--
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