> If reclaim fails to make sufficient progress, the priority is raised.
> Once the priority is higher, kswapd starts waiting on congestion.
> However, on systems with large numbers of high-order atomics due to
> crappy network cards, it's important that kswapd keep working in
> parallel to save their sorry ass.
> 
> This patch takes into account the order kswapd is reclaiming at before
> waiting on congestion. The higher the order, the longer it is before
> kswapd considers itself to be in trouble. The impact is that kswapd
> works harder in parallel rather than depending on direct reclaimers or
> atomic allocations to fail.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <[email protected]>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c |   14 ++++++++++++--
>  1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index ffa1766..5e200f1 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1946,7 +1946,7 @@ static int sleeping_prematurely(int order, long 
> remaining)
>  static unsigned long balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order)
>  {
>       int all_zones_ok;
> -     int priority;
> +     int priority, congestion_priority;
>       int i;
>       unsigned long total_scanned;
>       struct reclaim_state *reclaim_state = current->reclaim_state;
> @@ -1967,6 +1967,16 @@ static unsigned long balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, 
> int order)
>        */
>       int temp_priority[MAX_NR_ZONES];
>  
> +     /*
> +      * When priority reaches congestion_priority, kswapd will sleep
> +      * for a short time while congestion clears. The higher the
> +      * order being reclaimed, the less likely kswapd will go to
> +      * sleep as high-order allocations are harder to reclaim and
> +      * stall direct reclaimers longer
> +      */
> +     congestion_priority = DEF_PRIORITY - 2;
> +     congestion_priority -= min(congestion_priority, sc.order);

This calculation mean

        sc.order        congestion_priority     scan-pages
        ---------------------------------------------------------
        0               10                      1/1024 * zone-mem
        1               9                       1/512  * zone-mem
        2               8                       1/256  * zone-mem
        3               7                       1/128  * zone-mem
        4               6                       1/64   * zone-mem
        5               5                       1/32   * zone-mem
        6               4                       1/16   * zone-mem
        7               3                       1/8    * zone-mem
        8               2                       1/4    * zone-mem
        9               1                       1/2    * zone-mem
        10              0                       1      * zone-mem
        11+             0                       1      * zone-mem

I feel this is too agressive. The intention of this congestion_wait()
is to prevent kswapd use 100% cpu time. but the above promotion seems
break it.

example,
ia64 have 256MB hugepage (i.e. order=14). it mean kswapd never sleep.

example2,
order-3 (i.e. PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) makes one of most inefficent
reclaim, because it doesn't use lumpy recliam.
I've seen 128GB size zone, it mean 1/128 = 1GB. oh well, kswapd definitely
waste cpu time 100%.


> +
>  loop_again:
>       total_scanned = 0;
>       sc.nr_reclaimed = 0;
> @@ -2092,7 +2102,7 @@ loop_again:
>                * OK, kswapd is getting into trouble.  Take a nap, then take
>                * another pass across the zones.
>                */
> -             if (total_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> +             if (total_scanned && priority < congestion_priority)
>                       congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);

Instead, How about this?



---
 mm/vmscan.c |   13 ++++++++++++-
 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 64e4388..937e90d 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1938,6 +1938,7 @@ static unsigned long balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int 
order)
         * free_pages == high_wmark_pages(zone).
         */
        int temp_priority[MAX_NR_ZONES];
+       int has_under_min_watermark_zone = 0;
 
 loop_again:
        total_scanned = 0;
@@ -2057,6 +2058,15 @@ loop_again:
                        if (total_scanned > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * 2 &&
                            total_scanned > sc.nr_reclaimed + sc.nr_reclaimed / 
2)
                                sc.may_writepage = 1;
+
+                       /*
+                        * We are still under min water mark. it mean we have
+                        * GFP_ATOMIC allocation failure risk. Hurry up!
+                        */
+                       if (!zone_watermark_ok(zone, order, 
min_wmark_pages(zone),
+                                             end_zone, 0))
+                               has_under_min_watermark_zone = 1;
+
                }
                if (all_zones_ok)
                        break;          /* kswapd: all done */
@@ -2064,7 +2074,8 @@ loop_again:
                 * OK, kswapd is getting into trouble.  Take a nap, then take
                 * another pass across the zones.
                 */
-               if (total_scanned && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
+               if (total_scanned && (priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) &&
+                   !has_under_min_watermark_zone)
                        congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
 
                /*
-- 
1.6.2.5



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to