From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 458066B01F1 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:44:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:43:56 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] compaction: handle active and inactive fairly in too_many_isolated Message-ID: <20100826094356.GD20944@csn.ul.ie> References: <1282663879-4130-1-git-send-email-minchan.kim@gmail.com> <20100826090305.GC20944@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Minchan Kim Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel List , linux-mm@kvack.org, Wu Fengguang , Iram Shahzad List-ID: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 06:39:49PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:31:18AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > >> Iram reported compaction's too_many_isolated loops forever. > >> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg08123.html) > >> > >> The meminfo of situation happened was inactive anon is zero. > >> That's because the system has no memory pressure until then. > >> While all anon pages was in active lru, compaction could select > >> active lru as well as inactive lru. That's different things > >> with vmscan's isolated. So we has been two too_many_isolated. > >> > >> While compaction can isolated pages in both active and inactive, > >> current implementation of too_many_isolated only considers inactive. > >> It made Iram's problem. > >> > >> This patch handles active and inactive with fair. > >> That's because we can't expect where from and how many compaction would > >> isolated pages. > >> > >> This patch changes (nr_isolated > nr_inactive) with > >> nr_isolated > (nr_active + nr_inactive) / 2. > >> > >> Cc: Iram Shahzad > >> Acked-by: Mel Gorman > >> Acked-by: Wu Fengguang > >> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim > > > > Please send this patch on its own as it looks like it should be merged and > > arguably is a stable candidate for 2.6.35. Alternatively, Andrew, can you pick > > up just this patch? It seems unrelated to the second patch on COMPACTPAGEFAILED. > > I thought it's not urgent and next patch would apply based on this > patch without HUNK. Well it fixes a known bug so I would consider it a little urgent. It's not earth shattering or anything but why delay unnecessarily? > If Andrew doesn't have a response, I will resend as a standalone. > Thanks. > Thanks. -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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: email@kvack.org