[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20111011135445.f580749b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:54:45 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Satoru Moriya <smoriya@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"lwoodman@...hat.com" <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Seiji Aguchi <saguchi@...hat.com>,
"hughd@...gle.com" <hughd@...gle.com>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 -mm] add extra free kbytes tunable
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:23:22 -0400
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com> wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 03:55 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:32:11 -0400
> > Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/10/2011 06:37 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:08:19 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes
> >>> <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually page allocator decreases min watermark to 3/4 * min
> >> watermark for rt-task. But in our case some applications create a lot
> >> of processes and if all of them are rt-task, the amount of watermark
> >> bonus(1/4 * min watermark) is not enough.
> >>
> >> If we can tune the amount of bonus, it may be fine. But that is
> >> almost all same as extra free kbytes.
> >
> > This situation is detectable at runtime. If realtime tasks are being
> > stalled in the page allocator then start to increase the free-page
> > reserves. A little control system.
>
> Detecting at runtime is too late for some latency critical systems.
> At that system, we must avoid a stall before it happens.
It's pretty darn obvious that the kernel can easily see the situation
developing before it happens. By comparing a few integers.
Look, please don't go bending over backwards like this to defend a bad
patch. It's a bad patch! It would be better not to have to merge it.
Let's do something better.
> Also, if we increase the free-page reserves a.k.a min_free_kbytes,
> the possibility of direct reclaim on other workloads increases.
> I think it's a bad side effect.
extra_free_kbytes has the same side-effect.
--
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