On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 04:58:39PM -0500, Alex Thorlton wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 05:12:26AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Alex Thorlton <athorlton@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Last week, while discussing possible fixes for some unexpected/unwanted behavior > > > from khugepaged (see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/8/515) several people > > > mentioned possibly changing changing khugepaged to work as a task_work function > > > instead of a kernel thread. This will give us finer grained control over the > > > page collapse scans, eliminate some unnecessary scans since tasks that are > > > relatively inactive will not be scanned often, and eliminate the unwanted > > > behavior described in the email thread I mentioned. > > > > With your change, what would happen in a single threaded case? > > > > Previously one core would scan and another would run the workload. > > With your change both scanning and running would be on the same > > core. > > > > Would seem like a step backwards to me. > > I suppose from the single-threaded point of view, it could be. Maybe we > could look at this a bit differently. What if we allow processes to > choose their collapse mechanism on fork? Yet another knob nobody uses? Let's just do it right. -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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>