On Fri 23-10-15 03:42:26, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 05:49:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I am confused. What makes rescuer to not run? Nothing seems to be
> > hogging CPUs, we are just out of workers which are loopin in the
> > allocator but that is preemptible context.
>
> It's concurrency management. Workqueue thinks that the pool is making
> positive forward progress and doesn't schedule anything else for
> execution while that work item is burning cpu cycles.
Ohh, OK I can see wq_worker_sleeping now. I've missed your point in
other email, sorry about that. But now I am wondering whether this
is an intended behavior. The documentation says:
WQ_MEM_RECLAIM
All wq which might be used in the memory reclaim paths _MUST_
have this flag set. The wq is guaranteed to have at least one
execution context regardless of memory pressure.
Which doesn't seem to be true currently, right? Now I can see your patch
to introduce WQ_IMMEDIATE but I am wondering which WQ_MEM_RECLAIM users
could do without WQ_IMMEDIATE? I mean all current workers might be
looping in the page allocator and it seems possible that WQ_MEM_RECLAIM
work items might be waiting behind them so they cannot help to relieve
the memory pressure. This doesn't sound right to me. Or I am completely
confused and still fail to understand what is WQ_MEM_RECLAIM supposed to
be used for.
--
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>