On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 04:26:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 15:21:14 +0900
> Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > If laptop_mode is enable, VM try to avoid I/O for saving the power.
> > But if there isn't reclaimable memory without I/O, we should do I/O
> > for preventing unnecessary OOM kill although we sacrifices power.
> >
> > One of example is that we are out of page cache. Remained one is
> > only anonymous pages, for swapping out, we needs may_writepage = 1.
> >
> > Reported-by: Luigi Semenzato <semenzato@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 439cc47..624c816 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -1728,6 +1728,12 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc,
> > free = zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
> > if (unlikely(file + free <= high_wmark_pages(zone))) {
> > scan_balance = SCAN_ANON;
> > + /*
> > + * From now on, we have to swap out
> > + * for peventing OOM kill although
> > + * we sacrifice power consumption.
> > + */
> > + sc->may_writepage = 1;
> > goto out;
> > }
> > }
>
> This is pretty ugly. get_scan_count() is, as its name implies, an
> idempotent function which inspects the state of things and returns a
> result. As such, it has no business going in and altering the state of
> the scan_control.
>
> We have code in both direct reclaim and in kswapd to set may_writepage
> if vmscan is getting into trouble. I don't see why adding another
> instance is necessary if the existing instances are working correctly.
>
>
>
> (Is it correct that __zone_reclaim() ignores laptop_mode?)
>
>
> I have a feeling that laptop mode has bitrotted and these patches are
> kinda hacking around as-yet-not-understood failures...
Absolutely, this patch is last guard for unexpectable behavior.
As I mentioned in cover-letter, Luigi's problem could be solved either [1/2]
or [2/2] but I wanted to add this as last resort in case of unexpected
emergency. But you're right. It's not good to hide the problem like this path
so let's drop [2/2].
Also, I absolutely agree it has bitrotted so for correcting it, we need a
volunteer who have to inverstigate power saveing experiment with long time.
So [1/2] would be band-aid until that.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>