[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E95917D.3080507@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:09:17 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.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 10/11/2011 04:54 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.
The problem is that we may be dealing with bursts, not steady
states of allocations. Without knowing the size of a burst,
we have no idea when we should wake up kswapd to get enough
memory freed ahead of the application's allocations.
> 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.
I would love it if we could come up with something better,
and have thought about it a lot.
However, so far we do not seem to have an alternative yet :(
--
All rights reversed
--
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