On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:14 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> When kswapd is awoken due to reclaim by a running task, set the priority
>> of kswapd to that of the task allocating pages thus making memory reclaim
>> cpu activity affected by nice level.
>>
>> [rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx: refactor for current]
>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/vmscan.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -1658,6 +1658,33 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> + * Helper functions to adjust nice level of kswapd, based on the priority of
>> + * the task allocating pages. If it is already higher priority we do not
>> + * demote its nice level since it is still working on behalf of a higher
>> + * priority task. With kernel threads we leave it at nice 0.
>> + *
>> + * We don't ever run kswapd real time, so if a real time task calls kswapd we
>> + * set it to highest SCHED_NORMAL priority.
>> + */
>> +static int effective_sc_prio(struct task_struct *p)
>> +{
>> + if (likely(p->mm)) {
>> + if (rt_task(p))
>> + return -20;
>> + return task_nice(p);
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void set_kswapd_nice(struct task_struct *kswapd, int active)
>> +{
>> + long nice = effective_sc_prio(current);
>> +
>> + if (task_nice(kswapd) > nice || !active)
>> + set_user_nice(kswapd, nice);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> * This is the direct reclaim path, for page-allocating processes. We only
>> * try to reclaim pages from zones which will satisfy the caller's allocation
>> * request.
>> @@ -2257,6 +2284,7 @@ static int kswapd(void *p)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> + set_user_nice(tsk, 0);
>
> Why do you reset nice value which set by set_kswapd_nice?
My point is that you reset nice value(which is boosted at wakeup_kswapd) to 0
before calling balance_pgdat. It means kswapd could be rescheduled by nice 0
before really reclaim happens by balance_pgdat.
I think it would invalidate your goal which kswapd's priority can be inherited
by direct reclaimed process's one.
What am I missing now?
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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