Re: [PATCH] mm,vmscan: Use accurate values for zone_reclaimable() checks

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

Hello, Tetsuo.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 09:25:11PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> WQ_MEM_RECLAIM only guarantees that a "struct task_struct" is preallocated
> in order to avoid failing to allocate it on demand due to a GFP_KERNEL
> allocation? Is this correct?
> 
> WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE only guarantees that work items don't participate in
> concurrency management in order to avoid failing to wake up a "struct
> task_struct" which will process the work items? Is this correct?

CPU_INTENSIVE avoids the tail end of concurrency management.  The
previous HIGHPRI or the posted IMMEDIATE avoids the head end.

> Is Michal's question "does it make sense to use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM without
> WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE"? In other words, any "struct task_struct" which calls
> rescuer_thread() must imply WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE in order to avoid failing to
> wake up due to being participated in concurrency management?

If this is an actual problem, a better approach would be something
which detects the stall condition and kicks off the next work item but
if we do that I think I'd still trigger a warning there.  I don't
know.  Don't go busy waiting in kernel.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>