lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: yield during swap prefetching
Date
Andrew Morton writes:

> Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
>>
>> Swap prefetching doesn't use very much cpu but spends a lot of time waiting on
>> disk in uninterruptible sleep. This means it won't get preempted often even at
>> a low nice level since it is seen as sleeping most of the time. We want to
>> minimise its cpu impact so yield where possible.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
>> ---
>> mm/swap_prefetch.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> Index: linux-2.6.15-ck5/mm/swap_prefetch.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.15-ck5.orig/mm/swap_prefetch.c 2006-03-02 14:00:46.000000000 +1100
>> +++ linux-2.6.15-ck5/mm/swap_prefetch.c 2006-03-08 08:49:32.000000000 +1100
>> @@ -421,6 +421,7 @@ static enum trickle_return trickle_swap(
>>
>> if (trickle_swap_cache_async(swp_entry, node) == TRICKLE_DELAY)
>> break;
>> + yield();
>> }
>>
>> if (sp_stat.prefetched_pages) {
>
> yield() really sucks if there are a lot of runnable tasks. And the amount
> of CPU which that thread uses isn't likely to matter anyway.
>
> I think it'd be better to just not do this. Perhaps alter the thread's
> static priority instead? Does the scheduler have a knob which can be used
> to disable a tasks's dynamic priority boost heuristic?

We do have SCHED_BATCH but even that doesn't really have the desired effect.
I know how much yield sucks and I actually want it to suck as much as yield
does.

Cheers,
Con

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-08 00:34    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans