Re: [Patch] Call cond_resched() at bottom of main look in balance_pgdat()

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> >> Kosaki's patch's goal is that kswap doesn't yield cpu if the zone doesn't meet its
> >> min watermark to avoid failing atomic allocation.
> >> But this patch could yield kswapd's time slice at any time.
> >> Doesn't the patch break your goal in bb3ab59683?
> >
> > No. it don't break.
> >
> > Typically, kswapd periodically call shrink_page_list() and it call
> > cond_resched() even if bb3ab59683 case.
> 
> Hmm. If it is, bb3ab59683 is effective really?
> 
> The bb3ab59683's goal is prevent CPU yield in case of free < min_watermark.
> But shrink_page_list can yield cpu from kswapd at any time.
> So I am not sure what is bb3ab59683's benefit.
> Did you have any number about bb3ab59683's effectiveness?
> (Of course, I know it's very hard. Just out of curiosity)
> 
> As a matter of fact, when I saw this Larry's patch, I thought it would
> be better to revert bb3ab59683. Then congestion_wait could yield CPU
> to other process.
> 
> What do you think about?

No. The goal is not prevent CPU yield. The goal is avoid unnecessary
_long_ sleep (i.e. congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10)).
Anyway we can't refuse CPU yield on UP. it lead to hangup ;)

What do you mean the number? If it mean how much reduce congestion_wait(),
it was posted a lot of time. If it mean how much reduce page allocation 
failure bug report, I think it has been observable reduced since half 
years ago. 

If you have specific worried concern, can you please share it?



--
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/