Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Abort reclaim/compaction if compaction can proceed
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Date: 2011-10-07 20:24:23
Also in:
lkml
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 04:07:06PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 10/07/2011 11:17 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:quoted
If compaction can proceed, shrink_zones() stops doing any work but the callers still shrink_slab(), raises the priority and potentially sleeps. This patch aborts direct reclaim/compaction entirely if compaction can proceed. Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman<mgorman@suse.de>This patch makes sense to me, but I have not tested it like the first one.
Do if you can.
Mel, have you tested this patch?
Yes.
Did you see any changed behaviour vs. just the first patch?
It's marginal and could be confirmation bias on my part. Basically, there is noise when this path is being exercised but there were fewer slabs scanned. However, I don't know what the variances are and whether the reduction was within the noise or not but it makes sense that it would scan less. If I profiled carefully, I might be able to show that a few additional cycles are spent raising the priority but it would be marginal. While patch 1 is very clear, patch 2 depends on reviewers deciding it "makes sense".
Having said that, I'm pretty sure the patch is ok :)
Care to ack? -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>