Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 May 2011 09:45:59 +0900 | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: Correctly check if reclaimer should schedule during shrink_slab |
| |
(2011/05/18 1:15), Mel Gorman wrote: > It has been reported on some laptops that kswapd is consuming large > amounts of CPU and not being scheduled when SLUB is enabled during > large amounts of file copying. It is expected that this is due to > kswapd missing every cond_resched() point because; > > shrink_page_list() calls cond_resched() if inactive pages were isolated > which in turn may not happen if all_unreclaimable is set in > shrink_zones(). If for whatver reason, all_unreclaimable is > set on all zones, we can miss calling cond_resched(). > > balance_pgdat() only calls cond_resched if the zones are not > balanced. For a high-order allocation that is balanced, it > checks order-0 again. During that window, order-0 might have > become unbalanced so it loops again for order-0 and returns > that it was reclaiming for order-0 to kswapd(). It can then > find that a caller has rewoken kswapd for a high-order and > re-enters balance_pgdat() without ever calling cond_resched(). > > shrink_slab only calls cond_resched() if we are reclaiming slab > pages. If there are a large number of direct reclaimers, the > shrinker_rwsem can be contended and prevent kswapd calling > cond_resched(). > > This patch modifies the shrink_slab() case. If the semaphore is > contended, the caller will still check cond_resched(). After each > successful call into a shrinker, the check for cond_resched() is > still necessary in case one shrinker call is particularly slow. > > This patch replaces > mm-vmscan-if-kswapd-has-been-running-too-long-allow-it-to-sleep.patch > in -mm. > > [mgorman@suse.de: Preserve call to cond_resched after each call into shrinker] > From: Minchan Kim<minchan.kim@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman<mgorman@suse.de>
Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
| |