lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm] vmscan: bail out of page reclaim after swap_cluster_max pages
Date
Hi

I digged many git-log today.


> > > > Of course, one thing we could do is exempt kswapd from this check.
> > > > During light reclaim, kswapd does most of the eviction so scanning
> > > > should remain balanced. Having one process fall down to a lower
> > > > priority level is also not a big problem.
> > > >
> > > > As long as the direct reclaim processes do not also fall into the
> > > > same trap, the situation should be manageable.
> > > >
> > > > Does that sound reasonable to you?
> > >
> > > I'll need to find some time to go dig through the changelogs.
> >
> > as far as I tried, git database doesn't have that changelogs.
> > FWIW, I guess it is more old.
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/old-2.6-bkcvs.git
> goes back to 2.5.20 (iirc).

sorry, I was wrong.
following patch revertion was happend at 2006.

And, thank you andrew.
your comment is very nice.

So, desiable behavior is

direct reclaim:
should be bailed out if enough page reclaimed

kswapd:
don't bailed.


Actually, my prepared another bailed out patch has sc->may_cut_off member.
shrink_zone can do shorcut exiting if only sc->may_cut_off==1.


Rik, sorry, I nak current your patch.
because it don't fix old akpm issue.

Very sorry.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:11:14 +0000 (-0800)
Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: balancing fix
X-Git-Tag: v2.6.16-rc1~936^2~246


Revert a patch which went into 2.6.8-rc1. The changelog for that patch was:

The shrink_zone() logic can, under some circumstances, cause far too many
pages to be reclaimed. Say, we're scanning at high priority and suddenly
hit a large number of reclaimable pages on the LRU.

Change things so we bale out when SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages have been
reclaimed.

Problem is, this change caused significant imbalance in inter-zone scan
balancing by truncating scans of larger zones.

Suppose, for example, ZONE_HIGHMEM is 10x the size of ZONE_NORMAL. The zone
balancing algorithm would require that if we're scanning 100 pages of
ZONE_HIGHMEM, we should scan 10 pages of ZONE_NORMAL. But this logic will
cause the scanning of ZONE_HIGHMEM to bale out after only 32 pages are
reclaimed. Thus effectively causing smaller zones to be scanned relatively
harder than large ones.

Now I need to remember what the workload was which caused me to write this
patch originally, then fix it up in a different way...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-22 11:25    [W:0.069 / U:4.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site