From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F4D6B0169 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:56:11 +0100 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [patch 1/3]vmscan: clear ZONE_CONGESTED for zone with good watermark Message-ID: <20110728105611.GJ3010@suse.de> References: <1311840781.15392.407.camel@sli10-conroe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1311840781.15392.407.camel@sli10-conroe> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Shaohua Li Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm , Minchan Kim On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 04:13:01PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > correctly clear ZONE_CONGESTED. If a zone watermark is ok, we > should clear ZONE_CONGESTED regardless if this is a high order > allocation, because pages can be reclaimed in other tasks but > ZONE_CONGESTED is only cleared in kswapd. > What problem does this solve? As it is, for high order allocations it takes the following steps If reclaiming at high order { for each zone { if all_unreclaimable skip if watermark is not met order = 0 loop again /* watermark is met */ clear congested } } If high orders are failing, kswapd balances for order-0 where there is already a cleaning of ZONE_CONGESTED if the zone was shrunk and became balanced. I see the case for hunk 1 of the patch because now it'll clear ZONE_CONGESTED for zones that are already balanced which might have a noticable effect on wait_iff_congested. Is this what you see? Even if it is, it does not explain hunk 2 of the patch. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org