Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm, kswapd: replace kswapd compaction with waking up kcompactd

[Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>]

2016-03-02 23:40 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>:
> On 03/02/2016 03:22 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> 2016-03-02 23:09 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>:
>>> On 03/02/2016 02:57 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I know.
>>>> What I'd like to say here is that you need to care current_is_kswapd() in
>>>> this patch. This patch unintentionally change the back ground compaction
>>>> thread
>>>> behaviour to restart compaction by every 64 trials because calling
>>>> curret_is_kswapd()
>>>
>>>> by kcompactd would return false and is treated as direct reclaim.
>>>
>>> Oh, you mean this path to reset the skip bits. I see. But if skip bits are
>>> already reset by kswapd when waking kcompactd, then effect of another (rare)
>>> reset in kcompactd itself will be minimal?
>>
>> If you care current_is_kswapd() in this patch properly (properly means change
>> like "current_is_kcompactd()), reset in kswapd would not
>> happen because, compact_blockskip_flush would not be set by kcompactd.
>>
>> In this case, patch 5 would have it's own meaning so cannot be folded.
>
> So I understand that patch 5 would be just about this?
>
> -       if (compaction_restarting(zone, cc->order) && !current_is_kcompactd())
> +       if (compaction_restarting(zone, cc->order))
>                 __reset_isolation_suitable(zone);

Yeah, you understand correctly. :)

> I'm more inclined to fold it in that case.

Patch would be just simple, but, I guess it would cause some difference
in test result. But, I'm okay for folding.

Thanks.

--
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>