All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	lwoodman@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	minchan.kim@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] Use prepare_to_wait_exclusive() instead prepare_to_wait()
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:58:31 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B27A417.3040206@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1260855146.6126.30.camel@marge.simson.net>

On 12/15/2009 12:32 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:45 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2009 07:30 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>>> if we don't use exclusive queue, wake_up() function wake _all_ waited
>>>> task. This is simply cpu wasting.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro<kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>>
>>>>    		if (zone_watermark_ok(zone, sc->order, low_wmark_pages(zone),
>>>>    					0, 0)) {
>>>> -			wake_up(wq);
>>>> +			wake_up_all(wq);
>>>>    			finish_wait(wq,&wait);
>>>>    			sc->nr_reclaimed += sc->nr_to_reclaim;
>>>>    			return -ERESTARTSYS;
>>>
>>> I believe we want to wake the processes up one at a time
>>> here.

>> Actually, wake_up() and wake_up_all() aren't different so much.
>> Although we use wake_up(), the task wake up next task before
>> try to alloate memory. then, it's similar to wake_up_all().

That is a good point.  Maybe processes need to wait a little
in this if() condition, before the wake_up().  That would give
the previous process a chance to allocate memory and we can
avoid waking up too many processes.

> What happens to waiters should running tasks not allocate for a while?

When a waiter is woken up, it will either:
1) see that there is enough free memory and wake up the next guy, or
2) run shrink_zone and wake up the next guy

Either way, the processes that just got woken up will ensure that
the sleepers behind them in the queue will get woken up.

-- 
All rights reversed.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	lwoodman@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	minchan.kim@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] Use prepare_to_wait_exclusive() instead prepare_to_wait()
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:58:31 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B27A417.3040206@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1260855146.6126.30.camel@marge.simson.net>

On 12/15/2009 12:32 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:45 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2009 07:30 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>>> if we don't use exclusive queue, wake_up() function wake _all_ waited
>>>> task. This is simply cpu wasting.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro<kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>>
>>>>    		if (zone_watermark_ok(zone, sc->order, low_wmark_pages(zone),
>>>>    					0, 0)) {
>>>> -			wake_up(wq);
>>>> +			wake_up_all(wq);
>>>>    			finish_wait(wq,&wait);
>>>>    			sc->nr_reclaimed += sc->nr_to_reclaim;
>>>>    			return -ERESTARTSYS;
>>>
>>> I believe we want to wake the processes up one at a time
>>> here.

>> Actually, wake_up() and wake_up_all() aren't different so much.
>> Although we use wake_up(), the task wake up next task before
>> try to alloate memory. then, it's similar to wake_up_all().

That is a good point.  Maybe processes need to wait a little
in this if() condition, before the wake_up().  That would give
the previous process a chance to allocate memory and we can
avoid waking up too many processes.

> What happens to waiters should running tasks not allocate for a while?

When a waiter is woken up, it will either:
1) see that there is enough free memory and wake up the next guy, or
2) run shrink_zone and wake up the next guy

Either way, the processes that just got woken up will ensure that
the sleepers behind them in the queue will get woken up.

-- 
All rights reversed.

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-12-15 14:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 131+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-12-11 21:46 [PATCH v2] vmscan: limit concurrent reclaimers in shrink_zone Rik van Riel
2009-12-11 21:46 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14  0:14 ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14  0:14   ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14  4:09   ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14  4:09     ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14  4:19     ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14  4:19       ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14  4:29       ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14  4:29         ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14  5:00         ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14  5:00           ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 12:22 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:22   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:23   ` [cleanup][PATCH 1/8] vmscan: Make shrink_zone_begin/end helper function KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:23     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 14:34     ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 14:34       ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 22:39     ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 22:39       ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 12:24   ` [PATCH 2/8] Mark sleep_on as deprecated KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:24     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 13:03     ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-12-14 13:03       ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-12-14 16:04       ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-12-14 16:04         ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-12-14 14:34     ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 14:34       ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 22:44     ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 22:44       ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 12:29   ` [PATCH 3/8] Don't use sleep_on() KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:29     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 14:35     ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 14:35       ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 22:46     ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 22:46       ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 12:30   ` [PATCH 4/8] Use prepare_to_wait_exclusive() instead prepare_to_wait() KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:30     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 14:33     ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 14:33       ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-15  0:45       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-15  0:45         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-15  5:32         ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-15  5:32           ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-15  8:28           ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-15  8:28             ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-15 14:36             ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-15 14:36               ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-15 14:58           ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2009-12-15 14:58             ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-15 18:17             ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-15 18:17               ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-15 18:43             ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-15 18:43               ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-15 19:33               ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-15 19:33                 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-16  0:48             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-16  0:48               ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-16  2:44               ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-16  2:44                 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-16  5:43               ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-16  5:43                 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-14 23:03     ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 23:03       ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 12:30   ` [PATCH 5/8] Use io_schedule() instead schedule() KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:30     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 14:37     ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 14:37       ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 23:46     ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 23:46       ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-15  0:56       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-15  0:56         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-15  1:13         ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-15  1:13           ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 12:31   ` [PATCH 6/8] Stop reclaim quickly when the task reclaimed enough lots pages KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:31     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 14:45     ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 14:45       ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 23:51       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 23:51         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-15  0:11     ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-15  0:11       ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-15  0:35       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-15  0:35         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:32   ` [PATCH 7/8] Use TASK_KILLABLE instead TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:32     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 14:47     ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 14:47       ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 23:52     ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 23:52       ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 12:32   ` [PATCH 8/8] mm: Give up allocation if the task have fatal signal KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:32     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 14:48     ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 14:48       ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 23:54     ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-14 23:54       ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-15  0:50       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-15  0:50         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-15  1:03         ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-15  1:03           ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-15  1:16           ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-15  1:16             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:40   ` [PATCH v2] vmscan: limit concurrent reclaimers in shrink_zone KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 12:40     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-14 17:08 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-14 17:08   ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-15  0:49   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-15  0:49     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
     [not found]   ` <20091217193818.9FA9.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
2009-12-17 12:23     ` FWD: " Larry Woodman
2009-12-17 14:43       ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-17 14:43         ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-17 19:55       ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-17 19:55         ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-17 21:05         ` Hugh Dickins
2009-12-17 21:05           ` Hugh Dickins
2009-12-17 22:52           ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-17 22:52             ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-18 16:23           ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-12-18 16:23             ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-12-18 17:43             ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-18 17:43               ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-18 10:27       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-18 10:27         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-18 14:09         ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-18 14:09           ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-18 13:38 ` Avi Kivity
2009-12-18 13:38   ` Avi Kivity
2009-12-18 14:12   ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-18 14:12     ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-18 14:13     ` Avi Kivity
2009-12-18 14:13       ` Avi Kivity

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=4B27A417.3040206@redhat.com \
    --to=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
    --cc=minchan.kim@gmail.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.