[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <94de248f-94fa-91d-eb80-2ea75548282d@google.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 12:38:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, cgel.zte@...il.com,
naoya.horiguchi@....com, minchan@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
rogerq@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, guo.ziliang@....com.cn,
Zeal Robot <zealci@....com.cn>,
Ran Xiaokai <ran.xiaokai@....com.cn>,
Jiang Xuexin <jiang.xuexin@....com.cn>,
Yang Yang <yang.yang29@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] mm: swap: get rid of deadloop in swapin
readahead
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> I might be really missing something but I really do not see how is this
> any different from the page allocator path which only does cond_resched
> as well (well, except for throttling but that might just not trigger).
> Or other paths which just do cond_resched while waiting for a progress
> somewhere else.
>
> Not that I like this situation but !PREEMPT kernel with RT priority
> tasks is rather limited and full of potential priblems IMHO.
As I said in previous mail, I have really not given this as much
thought this time as I did in the 2018 mail thread linked there;
but have seen that it behaves more badly than I had imagined, in
any preemptive kernel - no need for RT. We just don't have the
stats to show when this code here spins waiting on code elsewhere
that is sleeping. I think the difference from most cond_resched()
places is that swapin is trying to collect together several factors
with minimal locking, and we should have added preempt_disable()s
when preemption was invented. But it's only swap so we didn't notice.
Hugh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists