[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201510230642.HDF57807.QJtSOVFFOMLHOF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:42:43 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: htejun@...il.com, mhocko@...nel.org
Cc: cl@...ux.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, 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
Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 05:49:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am confused. What makes rescuer to not run? Nothing seems to be
> > hogging CPUs, we are just out of workers which are loopin in the
> > allocator but that is preemptible context.
>
> It's concurrency management. Workqueue thinks that the pool is making
> positive forward progress and doesn't schedule anything else for
> execution while that work item is burning cpu cycles.
Then, isn't below change easier to backport which will also alleviate
needlessly burning CPU cycles?
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3385,6 +3385,7 @@ retry:
((gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT) && pages_reclaimed < (1 << order))) {
/* Wait for some write requests to complete then retry */
wait_iff_congested(ac->preferred_zone, BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
+ schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(1);
goto retry;
}
--
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