lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: disallow direct reclaim page writeback
Date
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 01:09:01PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > > How about this? For now, we stop direct reclaim from doing writeback
> > > only on order zero allocations, but allow it for higher order
> > > allocations. That will prevent the majority of situations where
> > > direct reclaim blows the stack and interferes with background
> > > writeout, but won't cause lumpy reclaim to change behaviour.
> > > This reduces the scope of impact and hence testing and validation
> > > the needs to be done.
> >
> > Tend to agree. but I would proposed slightly different algorithm for
> > avoind incorrect oom.
> >
> > for high order allocation
> > allow to use lumpy reclaim and pageout() for both kswapd and direct reclaim
>
> SO same as current.

Yes. as same as you propsed.

>
> > for low order allocation
> > - kswapd: always delegate io to flusher thread
> > - direct reclaim: delegate io to flusher thread only if vm pressure is low
>
> IMO, this really doesn't fix either of the problems - the bad IO
> patterns nor the stack usage. All it will take is a bit more memory
> pressure to trigger stack and IO problems, and the user reporting the
> problems is generating an awful lot of memory pressure...

This patch doesn't care stack usage. because
- again, I think all stack eater shold be diet.
- under allowing lumpy reclaim world, only deny low order reclaim
doesn't solve anything.

Please don't forget priority=0 recliam failure incvoke OOM-killer.
I don't imagine anyone want it.

And, Which IO workload trigger <6 priority vmscan?





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-15 08:37    [W:0.231 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site