Re: kswapd craziness in 3.7

[Johannes Weiner]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 04:16:52PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 03:58 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >Note that in the meantime, I've also applied (through Andrew) the
> >patch that reverts commit c654345924f7 (see commit 82b212f40059
> >'Revert "mm: remove __GFP_NO_KSWAPD"').
> >
> >I wonder if that revert may be bogus, and a result of this same issue.
> >Maybe that revert should be reverted, and replaced with your patch?
> >
> >Mel? Zdenek? What's the status here?
> 
> Mel posted several patches to fix the kswapd issue.  This one is
> slightly more risky than the outright revert, but probably preferred
> from a performance point of view:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/12/151
> 
> It works by skipping the kswapd wakeup for THP allocations, only
> if compaction is deferred or contended.

Just to clarify, this would be a replacement strictly for the
__GFP_NO_KSWAPD removal revert, to control how often kswapd is woken
up for higher order allocations like THP.

My patch is to fix how kswapd actually does higher order reclaim, and
it is required either way.

[ But isn't the _reason_ why the "wake up kswapd more carefully for
  THP" patch was written kind of moot now since it was developed
  against a crazy kswapd?  It would certainly need to be re-evaluated.
  My (limited) testing didn't show any issues anymore with waking
  kswapd unconditionally once it's fixed. ]
--
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/