From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6EAC9000BD for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:27:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:27:51 +0200 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: [patch 2/2]vmscan: correctly detect GFP_ATOMIC allocation failure Message-ID: <20110928092751.GA15062@tiehlicka.suse.cz> References: <1317108187.29510.201.camel@sli10-conroe> <20110927112810.GA3897@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <1317170933.22361.5.camel@sli10-conroe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1317170933.22361.5.camel@sli10-conroe> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Shaohua Li Cc: Andrew Morton , mel , Rik van Riel , linux-mm On Wed 28-09-11 08:48:53, Shaohua Li wrote: > On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 19:28 +0800, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 27-09-11 15:23:07, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > has_under_min_watermark_zone is used to detect if there is GFP_ATOMIC allocation > > > failure risk. For a high end_zone, if any zone below or equal to it has min > > > matermark ok, we have no risk. But current logic is any zone has min watermark > > > not ok, then we have risk. This is wrong to me. > > > > This, however, means that we skip congestion_wait more often as ZONE_DMA > > tend to be mostly balanced, right? This would mean that kswapd could hog > > CPU more. > We actually might have more congestion_wait, as now if any zone can meet > min watermark, we don't have has_under_min_watermark_zone set so do > congestion_wait Ahh, sorry, got confused. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org