From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06216C433ED for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:56:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE75613F5 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:56:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 5DE75613F5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 687D06B00A5; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 636E06B00A6; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:55:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 4FE6C6B00A8; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:55:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0124.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.124]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3729F6B00A5 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 02:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFEBA3620 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:55:58 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78062721996.22.1EA1AB3 Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB82A000394 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:55:46 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: hXDUNKuUfFyOavTN0LSG7Xfnb0JGbyOTcBFi81WRsCJEqJf3Nn84bOAVCRIWHcei8uNr/IHPzD HHMoHFK33fVQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,9962"; a="192838522" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,245,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="192838522" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Apr 2021 23:55:51 -0700 IronPort-SDR: GCdFF6GP8kc2I/8Dxaz0fqjxv8x5uyyexAcSKSBZVk2aLiVYPPqaPy7zifFC/Gn8dvXYDQRfiC +EP4Cj09ndgQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,245,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="428272895" Received: from xingzhen-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.238.4.46]) ([10.238.4.46]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Apr 2021 23:55:48 -0700 Subject: Re: [RFC] mm/vmscan.c: avoid possible long latency caused by too_many_isolated() To: Hillf Danton Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, Shakeel Butt , Michal Hocko , yuzhao@google.com, wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn References: <20210416023536.168632-1-zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com> <20210422102325.1332-1-hdanton@sina.com> From: Xing Zhengjun Message-ID: <2d254758-4e5c-5dbc-b939-0d1ca4be03a5@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 14:55:46 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210422102325.1332-1-hdanton@sina.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1CB82A000394 X-Stat-Signature: jdenzfewckgopmbizb4morpi9di5indm Received-SPF: none (linux.intel.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf24; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mga11.intel.com; client-ip=192.55.52.93 X-HE-DKIM-Result: none/none X-HE-Tag: 1619160946-150834 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000014, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 4/22/2021 6:23 PM, Hillf Danton wrote: > Another option seems like we take a nap at the second time of lru tmi > with some allocators in your case served without the 100ms delay. Thanks, I will try it with my test cases. -- Zhengjun Xing