Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758916Ab0FVDYF (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:24:05 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:45842 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758760Ab0FVDYD (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:24:03 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Minchan Kim Subject: Re: [Patch] Call cond_resched() at bottom of main look in balance_pgdat() Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Larry Woodman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org In-Reply-To: References: <20100622112416.B554.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20100622114739.B563.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja] Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:23:59 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1703 Lines: 42 > >> Kosaki's patch's goal is that kswap doesn't yield cpu if the zone doesn't meet its > >> min watermark to avoid failing atomic allocation. > >> But this patch could yield kswapd's time slice at any time. > >> Doesn't the patch break your goal in bb3ab59683? > > > > No. it don't break. > > > > Typically, kswapd periodically call shrink_page_list() and it call > > cond_resched() even if bb3ab59683 case. > > Hmm. If it is, bb3ab59683 is effective really? > > The bb3ab59683's goal is prevent CPU yield in case of free < min_watermark. > But shrink_page_list can yield cpu from kswapd at any time. > So I am not sure what is bb3ab59683's benefit. > Did you have any number about bb3ab59683's effectiveness? > (Of course, I know it's very hard. Just out of curiosity) > > As a matter of fact, when I saw this Larry's patch, I thought it would > be better to revert bb3ab59683. Then congestion_wait could yield CPU > to other process. > > What do you think about? No. The goal is not prevent CPU yield. The goal is avoid unnecessary _long_ sleep (i.e. congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10)). Anyway we can't refuse CPU yield on UP. it lead to hangup ;) What do you mean the number? If it mean how much reduce congestion_wait(), it was posted a lot of time. If it mean how much reduce page allocation failure bug report, I think it has been observable reduced since half years ago. If you have specific worried concern, can you please share it? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/