[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140507142033.1ec148fe35059121db547f25@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 14:20:33 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch v3 6/6] mm, compaction: terminate async compaction when
rescheduling
On Tue, 6 May 2014 19:22:52 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> Async compaction terminates prematurely when need_resched(), see
> compact_checklock_irqsave(). This can never trigger, however, if the
> cond_resched() in isolate_migratepages_range() always takes care of the
> scheduling.
>
> If the cond_resched() actually triggers, then terminate this pageblock scan for
> async compaction as well.
>
> ..
>
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> @@ -500,8 +500,13 @@ isolate_migratepages_range(struct zone *zone, struct compact_control *cc,
> return 0;
> }
>
> + if (cond_resched()) {
> + /* Async terminates prematurely on need_resched() */
> + if (cc->mode == MIGRATE_ASYNC)
> + return 0;
> + }
Comment comments the obvious. What is less obvious is *why* we do this.
Someone please remind my why sync and async compaction use different
scanning cursors?
--
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