lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] Do not unconditionally treat zones that fail zone_reclaim() as full
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 11:11:19AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:01:30PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On NUMA machines, the administrator can configure zone_reclaim_mode that
> > is a more targetted form of direct reclaim. On machines with large NUMA
> > distances for example, a zone_reclaim_mode defaults to 1 meaning that clean
> > unmapped pages will be reclaimed if the zone watermarks are not being
> > met. The problem is that zone_reclaim() failing at all means the zone
> > gets marked full.
> >
> > This can cause situations where a zone is usable, but is being skipped
> > because it has been considered full. Take a situation where a large tmpfs
> > mount is occuping a large percentage of memory overall. The pages do not
> > get cleaned or reclaimed by zone_reclaim(), but the zone gets marked full
> > and the zonelist cache considers them not worth trying in the future.
> >
> > This patch makes zone_reclaim() return more fine-grained information about
> > what occured when zone_reclaim() failued. The zone only gets marked full if
> > it really is unreclaimable. If it's a case that the scan did not occur or
> > if enough pages were not reclaimed with the limited reclaim_mode, then the
> > zone is simply skipped.
> >
> > There is a side-effect to this patch. Currently, if zone_reclaim()
> > successfully reclaimed SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, an allocation attempt would
> > go ahead. With this patch applied, zone watermarks are rechecked after
> > zone_reclaim() does some work.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
>
> Thanks for making the code a lot more readable :)
>
> Reviewed-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
>

Thanks.

> > /*
> > * Do not scan if the allocation should not be delayed.
> > */
> > if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) || (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC))
> > - return 0;
> > + return ZONE_RECLAIM_NOSCAN;
>
> Why not kill the extra tab?
>

Why not indeed. Tab is now killed.

--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-09 10:53    [W:0.165 / U:0.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site