lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm, kswapd: replace kswapd compaction with waking up kcompactd
From
2016-03-02 23:40 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>:
> On 03/02/2016 03:22 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> 2016-03-02 23:09 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>:
>>> On 03/02/2016 02:57 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I know.
>>>> What I'd like to say here is that you need to care current_is_kswapd() in
>>>> this patch. This patch unintentionally change the back ground compaction
>>>> thread
>>>> behaviour to restart compaction by every 64 trials because calling
>>>> curret_is_kswapd()
>>>
>>>> by kcompactd would return false and is treated as direct reclaim.
>>>
>>> Oh, you mean this path to reset the skip bits. I see. But if skip bits are
>>> already reset by kswapd when waking kcompactd, then effect of another (rare)
>>> reset in kcompactd itself will be minimal?
>>
>> If you care current_is_kswapd() in this patch properly (properly means change
>> like "current_is_kcompactd()), reset in kswapd would not
>> happen because, compact_blockskip_flush would not be set by kcompactd.
>>
>> In this case, patch 5 would have it's own meaning so cannot be folded.
>
> So I understand that patch 5 would be just about this?
>
> - if (compaction_restarting(zone, cc->order) && !current_is_kcompactd())
> + if (compaction_restarting(zone, cc->order))
> __reset_isolation_suitable(zone);

Yeah, you understand correctly. :)

> I'm more inclined to fold it in that case.

Patch would be just simple, but, I guess it would cause some difference
in test result. But, I'm okay for folding.

Thanks.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-03-02 16:41    [W:0.085 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site