lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -v2 -mm] add extra free kbytes tunable
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:23:22 -0400
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@hds.com> wrote:

> On 10/11/2011 03:55 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:32:11 -0400
> > Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@hds.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/10/2011 06:37 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:08:19 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes
> >>> <rientjes@google.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually page allocator decreases min watermark to 3/4 * min
> >> watermark for rt-task. But in our case some applications create a lot
> >> of processes and if all of them are rt-task, the amount of watermark
> >> bonus(1/4 * min watermark) is not enough.
> >>
> >> If we can tune the amount of bonus, it may be fine. But that is
> >> almost all same as extra free kbytes.
> >
> > This situation is detectable at runtime. If realtime tasks are being
> > stalled in the page allocator then start to increase the free-page
> > reserves. A little control system.
>
> Detecting at runtime is too late for some latency critical systems.
> At that system, we must avoid a stall before it happens.

It's pretty darn obvious that the kernel can easily see the situation
developing before it happens. By comparing a few integers.

Look, please don't go bending over backwards like this to defend a bad
patch. It's a bad patch! It would be better not to have to merge it.
Let's do something better.

> Also, if we increase the free-page reserves a.k.a min_free_kbytes,
> the possibility of direct reclaim on other workloads increases.
> I think it's a bad side effect.

extra_free_kbytes has the same side-effect.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-11 23:03    [W:0.141 / U:1.272 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site