From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx167.postini.com [74.125.245.167]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CE32B6B0031 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:31:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51AE78C3.1040500@sr71.net> Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:31:15 -0700 From: Dave Hansen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [v5][PATCH 6/6] mm: vmscan: drain batch list during long operations References: <20130603200202.7F5FDE07@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20130603200210.259954C3@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20130604060553.GF14719@blaptop> <51AE06B6.3030009@sr71.net> <20130604232315.GA31006@blaptop> In-Reply-To: <20130604232315.GA31006@blaptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Minchan Kim Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com On 06/04/2013 04:23 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 08:24:38AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 06/03/2013 11:05 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: >>>>> This ensures that we drain the batch if we are about to perform a >>>>> pageout() or congestion_wait(), either of which will take some >>>>> time. We expect this to help mitigate the worst of the latency >>>>> increase that the batching could cause. >>> Nice idea but I could see drain before pageout but congestion_wait? >> >> That comment managed to bitrot a bit :( >> >> The first version of these had the drain before pageout() only. Then, >> Mel added a congestion_wait() call, and I modified the series to also >> drain there. But, some other patches took the congestion_wait() back >> out, so I took that drain back out. > > I am looking next-20130530 and it has still a congestion_wait. > I'm confusing. :( > > > if (PageWriteback(page)) { > /* Case 1 above */ > if (current_is_kswapd() && > PageReclaim(page) && > zone_is_reclaim_writeback(zone)) { > congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10); > zone_clear_flag(zone, ZONE_WRITEBACK); >> >> I _believe_ the only congestion_wait() left in there is a cgroup-related >> one that we didn't think would cause very much harm. > > The congestion_wait I am seeing is not cgroup-related one. Yeah, sorry for the confusion. There's been a whole lot of activity in there. My set is also done on top of a couple of fixes that Mel posted later on, including this one: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2619901/ *That* one removes the congestion_wait() you noticed. -- 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: email@kvack.org