[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120412093209.GM3789@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:32:09 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Removal of lumpy reclaim V2
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:06:11PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 01:52 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:17:02PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> >>Next step: get rid of __GFP_NO_KSWAPD for THP, first
> >>in the -mm kernel
> >>
> >
> >Initially the flag was introduced because kswapd reclaimed too
> >aggressively. One would like to believe that it would be less of a problem
> >now but we must avoid a situation where the CPU and reclaim cost of kswapd
> >exceeds the benefit of allocating a THP.
>
> Since kswapd and the direct reclaim code now use
> the same conditionals for calling compaction,
> the cost ought to be identical.
>
kswapd has different retry logic for reclaim and can stay awake if there
are continual calls to wakeup_kswapd() setting pgdat->kswapd_max_order
and kswapd makes forward progress. It's not identical enough that I would
express 100% confidence that it will be free of problems.
--
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