Re: [PATCH 0/3] Removal of lumpy reclaim V2

[Mel Gorman]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:06:11PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 01:52 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:17:02PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> >>Next step: get rid of __GFP_NO_KSWAPD for THP, first
> >>in the -mm kernel
> >>
> >
> >Initially the flag was introduced because kswapd reclaimed too
> >aggressively. One would like to believe that it would be less of a problem
> >now but we must avoid a situation where the CPU and reclaim cost of kswapd
> >exceeds the benefit of allocating a THP.
> 
> Since kswapd and the direct reclaim code now use
> the same conditionals for calling compaction,
> the cost ought to be identical.
> 

kswapd has different retry logic for reclaim and can stay awake if there
are continual calls to wakeup_kswapd() setting pgdat->kswapd_max_order
and kswapd makes forward progress. It's not identical enough that I would
express 100% confidence that it will be free of problems.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/