Re: [PATCH -v2 -mm] add extra free kbytes tunable

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:23:22 -0400
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 10/11/2011 03:55 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:32:11 -0400
> > Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 10/10/2011 06:37 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:08:19 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes 
> >>> <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually page allocator decreases min watermark to 3/4 * min 
> >> watermark for rt-task. But in our case some applications create a lot 
> >> of processes and if all of them are rt-task, the amount of watermark
> >> bonus(1/4 * min watermark) is not enough.
> >>
> >> If we can tune the amount of bonus, it may be fine. But that is 
> >> almost all same as extra free kbytes.
> > 
> > This situation is detectable at runtime.  If realtime tasks are being 
> > stalled in the page allocator then start to increase the free-page 
> > reserves.  A little control system.
> 
> Detecting at runtime is too late for some latency critical systems.
> At that system, we must avoid a stall before it happens.

It's pretty darn obvious that the kernel can easily see the situation
developing before it happens.  By comparing a few integers.

Look, please don't go bending over backwards like this to defend a bad
patch.  It's a bad patch!  It would be better not to have to merge it. 
Let's do something better.

> Also, if we increase the free-page reserves a.k.a min_free_kbytes,
> the possibility of direct reclaim on other workloads increases.
> I think it's a bad side effect.

extra_free_kbytes has the same side-effect.
--
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/