On Thu 21-03-13 09:47:13, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 05:18:47PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Sun 17-03-13 13:04:07, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > index 88c5fed..4835a7a 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > @@ -2593,6 +2593,32 @@ static bool prepare_kswapd_sleep(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, long remaining,
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > + * kswapd shrinks the zone by the number of pages required to reach
> > > + * the high watermark.
> > > + */
> > > +static void kswapd_shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
> > > + struct scan_control *sc,
> > > + unsigned long lru_pages)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long nr_slab;
> > > + struct reclaim_state *reclaim_state = current->reclaim_state;
> > > + struct shrink_control shrink = {
> > > + .gfp_mask = sc->gfp_mask,
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + /* Reclaim above the high watermark. */
> > > + sc->nr_to_reclaim = max(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, high_wmark_pages(zone));
> >
> > OK, so the cap is at high watermark which sounds OK to me, although I
> > would expect balance_gap being considered here. Is it not used
> > intentionally or you just wanted to have a reasonable upper bound?
> >
>
> It's intentional. The balance_gap is taken into account before the
> decision to shrink but not afterwards. As the watermark check after
> shrinking is based on just the high watermark, I decided to have
> shrink_zone reclaim on that basis.
OK, it makes sense. Thanks both you and Rik for clarification.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>