[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1510220923130.23591@east.gentwo.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:23:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
mhocko@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
kwalker@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
vdavydov@...allels.com, skozina@...hat.com, mgorman@...e.de,
riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,vmscan: Use accurate values for zone_reclaimable()
checks
On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hmmm? Just use a dedicated workqueue with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM. If
> > concurrency management is a problem and there's something live-locking
> > for that work item (really?), WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE escapes it. If this is
> > a common occurrence that it makes sense to give vmstat higher
> > priority, set WQ_HIGHPRI.
>
> Oooh, HIGHPRI + CPU_INTENSIVE immediate scheduling guarantee got lost
> while converting HIGHPRI to a separate pool but guaranteeing immediate
> scheduling for CPU_INTENSIVE is trivial. If vmstat requires that,
> please let me know.
I guess we need that otherwise vm statistics are not updated while worker
threads are blocking on memory reclaim.
--
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