> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index bf72055..5a27896 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1899,6 +1899,12 @@ rebalance:
> > if (should_alloc_retry(gfp_mask, order, pages_reclaimed)) {
> > /* Wait for some write requests to complete then retry */
> > congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * While we wait congestion wait, Amount of free memory can
> > + * be changed dramatically. Thus, we kick kswapd again.
> > + */
> > + wake_all_kswapd(order, zonelist, high_zoneidx);
> > goto rebalance;
> > }
> >
>
> We're blocking to finish writeback of the directly reclaimed memory, why
> do we need to wake kswapd afterwards?
the same reason of "goto restart" case. that's my intention.
if following scenario occur, it is equivalent that we didn't call wake_all_kswapd().
1. call congestion_wait()
2. kswapd reclaimed lots memory and sleep
3. another task consume lots memory
4. wakeup from congestion_wait()
IOW, if we falled into __alloc_pages_slowpath(), we naturally expect
next page_alloc() don't fall into slowpath. however if kswapd end to
its work too early, this assumption isn't true.
Is this too pessimistic assumption?
--
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
