Re: [PATCH] vmscan: synchronous lumpy reclaim don't call congestion_wait()

[Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:13 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Hi KOSAKI,
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 06:12:47PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> > rebased onto Wu's patch
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------
>> > From 35772ad03e202c1c9a2252de3a9d3715e30d180f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
>> > Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:23:41 +0900
>> > Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: synchronous lumpy reclaim don't call congestion_wait()
>> >
>> > congestion_wait() mean "waiting for number of requests in IO queue is
>> > under congestion threshold".
>> > That said, if the system have plenty dirty pages, flusher thread push
>> > new request to IO queue conteniously. So, IO queue are not cleared
>> > congestion status for a long time. thus, congestion_wait(HZ/10) is
>> > almostly equivalent schedule_timeout(HZ/10).
>> Just a nitpick.
>> Why is it a problem?
>> HZ/10 is upper bound we intended.  If is is rahter high, we can low it.
>> But totally I agree on this patch. It would be better to remove it
>> than lowing.
>
> because all of _unnecessary_ sleep is evil. the problem is, congestion_wait()
> mean "wait until queue congestion will be cleared, iow, wait all of IO".
> but we want to wait until _my_ IO finished.
>
> So, if flusher thread conteniously push new IO into the queue, that makes
> big difference.
>

Agree. Please include this explanation in description to make it kind
if you resent this patch.
Thanks


-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
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>