Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:42:42 -0400 | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Abort reclaim/compaction if compaction can proceed |
| |
On 10/07/2011 04:24 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 04:07:06PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: >> On 10/07/2011 11:17 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: >>> If compaction can proceed, shrink_zones() stops doing any work but >>> the callers still shrink_slab(), raises the priority and potentially >>> sleeps. This patch aborts direct reclaim/compaction entirely if >>> compaction can proceed. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman<mgorman@suse.de> >> >> This patch makes sense to me, but I have not tested it like >> the first one. >> > > Do if you can.
I'll probably build a kernel with your patch in it on Sunday - I'll be walking across a mountain tomorrow :)
> It's marginal and could be confirmation bias on my part. Basically, > there is noise when this path is being exercised but there were fewer > slabs scanned. However, I don't know what the variances are and > whether the reduction was within the noise or not but it makes sense > that it would scan less. If I profiled carefully, I might be able > to show that a few additional cycles are spent raising the priority > but it would be marginal.
This seems clear enough.
> While patch 1 is very clear, patch 2 depends on reviewers deciding it > "makes sense". > >> Having said that, I'm pretty sure the patch is ok :) >> > > Care to ack?
Sure.
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
-- All rights reversed
| |