[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87lho0pf4l.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:12:26 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Bob Liu <lliubbo@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Convert khugepaged to a task_work function
Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com> writes:
> Last week, while discussing possible fixes for some unexpected/unwanted behavior
> from khugepaged (see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/8/515) several people
> mentioned possibly changing changing khugepaged to work as a task_work function
> instead of a kernel thread. This will give us finer grained control over the
> page collapse scans, eliminate some unnecessary scans since tasks that are
> relatively inactive will not be scanned often, and eliminate the unwanted
> behavior described in the email thread I mentioned.
With your change, what would happen in a single threaded case?
Previously one core would scan and another would run the workload.
With your change both scanning and running would be on the same
core.
Would seem like a step backwards to me.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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