From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already (v3)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:02:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090715210253.bc137b2d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090715235318.6d2f5247@bree.surriel.com>
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:53:18 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> @@ -1049,6 +1074,14 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis
> struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = get_reclaim_stat(zone, sc);
> int lumpy_reclaim = 0;
>
> + while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc))) {
> + congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10);
> +
> + /* We are about to die and free our memory. Return now. */
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> + return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> + }
mutter.
While I agree that handling fatal signals on the direct reclaim path
is probably a good thing, this seems like a fairly random place at
which to start the enhancement.
If we were to step back and approach this in a broader fashion, perhaps
we would find some commonality with the existing TIF_MEMDIE handling,
dunno.
And I question the testedness of v3 :)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already (v3)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:02:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090715210253.bc137b2d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090715235318.6d2f5247@bree.surriel.com>
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:53:18 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> @@ -1049,6 +1074,14 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis
> struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = get_reclaim_stat(zone, sc);
> int lumpy_reclaim = 0;
>
> + while (unlikely(too_many_isolated(zone, file, sc))) {
> + congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10);
> +
> + /* We are about to die and free our memory. Return now. */
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> + return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
> + }
mutter.
While I agree that handling fatal signals on the direct reclaim path
is probably a good thing, this seems like a fairly random place at
which to start the enhancement.
If we were to step back and approach this in a broader fashion, perhaps
we would find some commonality with the existing TIF_MEMDIE handling,
dunno.
And I question the testedness of v3 :)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-16 4:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-16 2:38 [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 2:38 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 2:48 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 2:48 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:10 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:10 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:21 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:21 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:28 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:28 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:38 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:38 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:42 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:42 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:51 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:51 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 3:53 ` [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already (v3) Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:53 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 4:02 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-07-16 4:02 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 4:09 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 4:09 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 4:26 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-16 4:26 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-29 15:04 ` Pavel Machek
2009-07-29 15:04 ` Pavel Machek
2009-07-29 16:19 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-29 16:19 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:36 ` [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already (v2) Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:36 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:19 ` [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-16 3:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-16 3:32 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:32 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-16 3:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-07-16 3:47 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-16 3:47 ` Rik van Riel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090715210253.bc137b2d.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.