On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If a direct reclaim makes no forward progress, it considers whether it > should go OOM or not. Whether OOM is triggered or not, it may retry the > application afterwards. In times past, this would always wake kswapd as well > but currently, kswapd is not woken up after direct reclaim fails. For order-0 > allocations, this makes little difference but if there is a heavy mix of > higher-order allocations that direct reclaim is failing for, it might mean > that kswapd is not rewoken for higher orders as much as it did previously. > > This patch wakes up kswapd when an allocation is being retried after a direct > reclaim failure. It would be expected that kswapd is already awake, but > this has the effect of telling kswapd to reclaim at the higher order as well. > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> You seem to have dropped the Reviewed-by tags from me and Christoph for this patch. > mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > index bf72055..dfa4362 100644 > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -1817,9 +1817,9 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order, > if (NUMA_BUILD && (gfp_mask & GFP_THISNODE) == GFP_THISNODE) > goto nopage; > > +restart: > wake_all_kswapd(order, zonelist, high_zoneidx); > > -restart: > /* > * OK, we're below the kswapd watermark and have kicked background > * reclaim. Now things get more complex, so set up alloc_flags according > -- > 1.6.3.3 > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
