On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:06:19AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 09:47:35AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > ><snip> > > To ensure that kswapd wakes up, a safe version of zone_watermark_ok() > > is introduced that takes a more accurate reading of NR_FREE_PAGES when > > called from wakeup_kswapd, when deciding whether it is really safe to go > > back to sleep in sleeping_prematurely() and when deciding if a zone is > > really balanced or not in balance_pgdat(). We are still using an expensive > > function but limiting how often it is called. > ><snip> > > Reported-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> > > Hi Mel, > > I notice these aren't flagged for stable, should they be? (They fairly > trivially apply and compile on 2.6.36 barring the trace_ points which > changed.) They were not flagged for stable because they were performance rather than function bugs that affected a limited number of machines. Should that decision be revisited? > I've got a few bug reports against .36/.37 where kswapd has > been sleeping for 60s+. > I do not believe these patches would affect kswapd sleeping for 60s. > I built them some kernels with these patches, but haven't heard back yet > as to whether it fixes things for them. > > Thanks for any insight, Can you point me at a relevant bugzilla entry or forward me the bug report and I'll take a look? -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>