On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:02:32AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/18/2013 10:54 AM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> > index cb5d152b58bc..661ff5f66591 100644
> > --- a/mm/migrate.c
> > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> > @@ -454,7 +454,8 @@ static void __copy_gigantic_page(struct page *dst, struct page *src,
> > struct page *src_base = src;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; ) {
> > - cond_resched();
> > + if (i % MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES == 0)
> > + cond_resched();
> > copy_highpage(dst, src);
>
> This is certainly OK on x86, but remember that MAX_ORDER can be
> overridden by a config variable. Just picking one at random:
>
> config FORCE_MAX_ZONEORDER
> int "Maximum zone order"
> range 9 64 if PPC64 && PPC_64K_PAGES
> ...
>
> Would it be OK to only resched once every 2^63 pages? ;)
You're right. We need use more reliable value here.
HPAGE_SIZE/PAGE_SIZE looks better to me.
> Really, though, a lot of things seem to have MAX_ORDER set up so that
> it's at 256MB or 512MB. That's an awful lot to do between rescheds.
Yes.
BTW, I found that we have the same problem for other functions like
copy_user_gigantic_page, copy_user_huge_page, and maybe clear_gigantic_page.
So we had better handle them too.
Thanks,
Naoya
--
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>