On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:57:56PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
> either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
> This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
But the
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:57:56PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
But the priority
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko
Acked-by: Rik van Riel
---
Hi Mel,
On 04/11/2013 06:01 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:21:42PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
@@ -2673,9 +2674,15 @@ static bool kswapd_shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
sc->nr_to_reclaim = max(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, high_wmark_pages(zone));
shrink_zone(zone, sc);
-
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:21:42PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > @@ -2673,9 +2674,15 @@ static bool kswapd_shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
> > > > sc->nr_to_reclaim = max(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX,
> > > > high_wmark_pages(zone));
> > > > shrink_zone(zone, sc);
> > > >
> > > > -
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:07:34AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >
> > > I think that outside of zone loop is better place to run shrink_slab(),
> > > because
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:07:34AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
I think that outside of zone loop is better place to run shrink_slab(),
because shrink_slab() is not
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:21:42PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
@@ -2673,9 +2674,15 @@ static bool kswapd_shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
sc-nr_to_reclaim = max(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX,
high_wmark_pages(zone));
shrink_zone(zone, sc);
-
Hi Mel,
On 04/11/2013 06:01 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:21:42PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
@@ -2673,9 +2674,15 @@ static bool kswapd_shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
sc-nr_to_reclaim = max(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, high_wmark_pages(zone));
shrink_zone(zone, sc);
-
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko
Hello, Dave.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:07:34AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >
> > > I think that outside of zone loop is better place to run shrink_slab(),
> > >
Hello, Mel.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Hello, Mel.
> > Sorry for too late question.
> >
>
> No need to apologise at all.
>
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > I think that outside of zone loop is better place to run shrink_slab(),
> > because shrink_slab() is not directly related to a specific zone.
> >
>
> This is true and
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Hello, Mel.
> Sorry for too late question.
>
No need to apologise at all.
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
> > either discard
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko
Acked-by: Rik van Riel
---
Hi Joonsoo,
On 04/09/2013 02:53 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
Hello, Mel.
Sorry for too late question.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning
Hello, Mel.
Sorry for too late question.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
> either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
> This patch causes kswapd to only call the
Hello, Mel.
Sorry for too late question.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the
Hi Joonsoo,
On 04/09/2013 02:53 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
Hello, Mel.
Sorry for too late question.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
Hello, Mel.
Sorry for too late question.
No need to apologise at all.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
I think that outside of zone loop is better place to run shrink_slab(),
because shrink_slab() is not directly related to a specific zone.
This is true and has been
Hello, Mel.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
Hello, Mel.
Sorry for too late question.
No need to apologise at all.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
If kswaps fails
Hello, Dave.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:07:34AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
I think that outside of zone loop is better place to run shrink_slab(),
because
On 03/17/2013 09:04 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
On Sun 17-03-13 13:04:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
> either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
> This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
On Sun 17-03-13 13:04:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
On 03/17/2013 09:04 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
Mel Gorman writes:
> If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
> either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
> This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Great. This was too aggressive for a long time.
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
---
mm/vmscan.c | 28 +---
1
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de
---
mm/vmscan.c | 28
Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de writes:
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Great. This was too aggressive for a long
32 matches
Mail list logo
