On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 03:16:06PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> isolate_lru_pages() doesn't only isolate LRU tail pages, but also
> isolate neighbor pages of the eviction page.
>
> Now, the neighbor search don't stop even if neighbors can't be isolated.
> It is silly. successful higher order allocation need full contenious
> memory, even though only one page reclaim failure mean to fail making
> enough contenious memory.
>
> Then, isolate_lru_pages() should stop to search PFN neighbor pages and
> try to search next page on LRU soon. This patch does it. Also all of
> lumpy reclaim failure account nr_lumpy_failed.
>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I agree this patch.
But I have a one question.
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
<snip>
> if (__isolate_lru_page(cursor_page, mode, file) == 0) {
> list_move(&cursor_page->lru, dst);
> @@ -1074,9 +1080,11 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> nr_lumpy_dirty++;
> scan++;
> } else {
> - if (mode == ISOLATE_BOTH &&
> - page_count(cursor_page))
> - nr_lumpy_failed++;
sc->order = 1;
shrink_inactive_list;
isolate_pages_global with ISOLATE_INACTIVE(I mean no lumpy relcaim mode);
lumpy relcaim in inactive list in isolate_lru_pages;
(But I am not sure we can call it as lumpy reclaim. but at lesat I think
it a part of lumpy reclaim)
I mean it can reclaim physical pfn order not LRU order in inactive list since
it only consider sc->order. Is it a intentional?
I guess it's intentional since we care of ISOLATE_BOTH when we increase nr_lumpy_failed.
If it is, Shouldn't we care of ISOLATE_BOTH still?
> + /* the page is freed already. */
> + if (!page_count(cursor_page))
> + continue;
> + nr_lumpy_failed++;
> + break;
> }
> }
> }
> --
> 1.6.5.2
>
--
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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>