[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/12] mm: supporting variables and functions for balanced zone aging
Marcelo Tosatti <> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 02:37:14AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Wu Fengguang <> wrote:
> > >
> > > The zone aging rates are currently imbalanced,
> >
> > ZONE_DMA is out of whack. It shouldn't be, and I'm not aware of anyone
> > getting in and working out why. I certainly wouldn't want to go and add
> > all this stuff without having a good understanding of _why_ it's out of
> > whack. Perhaps it's just some silly bug, like the thing I pointed at in
> > the previous email.
> I think that the problem is caused by the interaction between
> the way reclaiming is quantified and parallel allocators.

Could be. But what about the bug which I think is there? That'll cause
overscanning of the DMA zone.

> The zones have different sizes, and each zone reclaim iteration
> scans the same number of pages. It is unfair.

Nope. See how shrink_zone() bases nr_active and nr_inactive on
zone->nr_active and zone_nr_inactive. These calculations are intended to
cause the number of scanned pages in each zone to be

(zone->nr-active + zone->nr_inactive) >> sc->priority.

> On top of that, kswapd is likely to block while doing its job,
> which means that allocators have a chance to run.

kswapd should only block under rare circumstances - huge amounts of dirty
pages coming off the tail of the LRU.

> --- mm/vmscan.c.orig 2006-01-01 12:44:39.000000000 -0200
> +++ mm/vmscan.c 2006-01-01 16:43:54.000000000 -0200
> @@ -616,8 +616,12 @@
> {

Please use `diff -p'.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-02 00:07    [W:0.096 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site