Thread (12 messages) 12 messages, 4 authors, 2012-01-30

Re: [PATCH v3 -mm 1/3] mm: reclaim at order 0 when compaction is enabled

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2012-01-27 23:31:29
Also in: lkml

On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:59:14 -0500
Rik van Riel [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
When built with CONFIG_COMPACTION, kswapd should not try to free
contiguous pages, because it is not trying hard enough to have
a real chance at being successful, but still disrupts the LRU
enough to break other things.

Do not do higher order page isolation unless we really are in
lumpy reclaim mode.

Stop reclaiming pages once we have enough free pages that
compaction can deal with things, and we hit the normal order 0
watermarks used by kswapd.

Also remove a line of code that increments balanced right before
exiting the function.

...
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1139,7 +1139,7 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode, int file)
  * @mz:		The mem_cgroup_zone to pull pages from.
  * @dst:	The temp list to put pages on to.
  * @nr_scanned:	The number of pages that were scanned.
- * @order:	The caller's attempted allocation order
+ * @sc:		The scan_control struct for this reclaim session
  * @mode:	One of the LRU isolation modes
  * @active:	True [1] if isolating active pages
  * @file:	True [1] if isolating file [!anon] pages
@@ -1148,8 +1148,8 @@ int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, isolate_mode_t mode, int file)
  */
 static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
 		struct mem_cgroup_zone *mz, struct list_head *dst,
-		unsigned long *nr_scanned, int order, isolate_mode_t mode,
-		int active, int file)
+		unsigned long *nr_scanned, struct scan_control *sc,
+		isolate_mode_t mode, int active, int file)
 {
 	struct lruvec *lruvec;
 	struct list_head *src;
@@ -1195,7 +1195,7 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
 			BUG();
 		}
 
-		if (!order)
+		if (!sc->order || !(sc->reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM))
We should have a comment here explaining the reason for the code.

And the immediately following comment isn't very good: "Only take those
pages of the same active state as that tag page".  As is common with
poor comments, it tells us "what", but not "why".  Reclaiming inactive
_and_ inactive pages would make larger-page freeing more successful and
might be a good thing!  Apparently someone felt otherwise, but the
reader is kept in the dark...

--
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>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help