From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com
Subject: [PATCH for -mm] bailing out check first
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:05:42 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081211170321.500B.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
Hi
This patch intent to fix trivial problem of rvr bailing out patch.
Is this useful?
==
Subject: [PATCH for -mm] bailing out check first
current reclaim bailing out logic has a bit inefficiency.
example, if system has 4 node and reclaim logic can get enough memory from first node,
current logic works as following.
1. reclaim node-1 and success reclaim enough memory.
then, bailing out happend.
2. shrink_zones() call shrink_zone(node-2) and scan 32 page on each lru list.
after that, shrink_zone stop node-2 reclaim by bailing out logic.
3. shrink_zones() call shrink_zone(node-3) ...
4. shrink_zones() call shrink_zone(node-4) ...
step 2-4 are unnecessary.
it can be removed.
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Index: b/mm/vmscan.c
===================================================================
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1452,15 +1452,6 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, st
while (nr[LRU_INACTIVE_ANON] || nr[LRU_ACTIVE_FILE] ||
nr[LRU_INACTIVE_FILE]) {
- for_each_evictable_lru(l) {
- if (nr[l]) {
- nr_to_scan = min(nr[l], swap_cluster_max);
- nr[l] -= nr_to_scan;
-
- nr_reclaimed += shrink_list(l, nr_to_scan,
- zone, sc, priority);
- }
- }
/*
* On large memory systems, scan >> priority can become
* really large. This is fine for the starting priority;
@@ -1472,6 +1463,16 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, st
if (nr_reclaimed > swap_cluster_max &&
priority < DEF_PRIORITY && !current_is_kswapd())
break;
+
+ for_each_evictable_lru(l) {
+ if (nr[l]) {
+ nr_to_scan = min(nr[l], swap_cluster_max);
+ nr[l] -= nr_to_scan;
+
+ nr_reclaimed += shrink_list(l, nr_to_scan,
+ zone, sc, priority);
+ }
+ }
}
sc->nr_reclaimed = nr_reclaimed;
reply other threads:[~2008-12-11 8:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081211170321.500B.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox