From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: kswapd stuck using 100% CPU
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:56:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120326135609.GM1007@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJsxLGcoxxdhe2sNmAbC2e5afnZm9960XxBjY+QoCoc0RRb2w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 01:40:41PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:26:21AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >>
> >> Only test compaction_suitable if the kernel is built with CONFIG_COMPACTION,
> >> otherwise the stub compaction_suitable function will always return
> >> COMPACT_SKIPPED and send kswapd into an infinite loop.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> >> Reported-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
> >
> > Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
>
> The API looks fragile and this patch isn't exactly making it any
> better. Why don't we make compaction_suitable() return something other
> than COMPACT_SKIPPED for !CONFIG_COMPACTION case?
>
Returning COMPACT_PARTIAL or COMPACT_CONTINUE would confuse the check in
should_continue_reclaim. A fourth return type could be added but an
obvious name does not spring to mind that would end up being similar to
just adding a CONFIG_COMPACTION check.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
aarcange@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: kswapd stuck using 100% CPU
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:56:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120326135609.GM1007@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJsxLGcoxxdhe2sNmAbC2e5afnZm9960XxBjY+QoCoc0RRb2w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 01:40:41PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:26:21AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >>
> >> Only test compaction_suitable if the kernel is built with CONFIG_COMPACTION,
> >> otherwise the stub compaction_suitable function will always return
> >> COMPACT_SKIPPED and send kswapd into an infinite loop.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> >> Reported-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
> >
> > Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
>
> The API looks fragile and this patch isn't exactly making it any
> better. Why don't we make compaction_suitable() return something other
> than COMPACT_SKIPPED for !CONFIG_COMPACTION case?
>
Returning COMPACT_PARTIAL or COMPACT_CONTINUE would confuse the check in
should_continue_reclaim. A fourth return type could be added but an
obvious name does not spring to mind that would end up being similar to
just adding a CONFIG_COMPACTION check.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-26 13:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-24 2:03 kswapd stuck using 100% CPU Anton Blanchard
2012-03-24 2:03 ` Anton Blanchard
2012-03-24 14:26 ` [PATCH] " Rik van Riel
2012-03-24 14:26 ` Rik van Riel
2012-03-25 19:16 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-25 19:16 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-26 9:32 ` Mel Gorman
2012-03-26 9:32 ` Mel Gorman
2012-03-26 10:40 ` Pekka Enberg
2012-03-26 10:40 ` Pekka Enberg
2012-03-26 13:56 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2012-03-26 13:56 ` Mel Gorman
2012-03-26 15:10 ` Pekka Enberg
2012-03-26 15:10 ` Pekka Enberg
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=20120326135609.GM1007@csn.ul.ie \
--to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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.