From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752592Ab0K2J4h (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:56:37 -0500 Received: from gir.skynet.ie ([193.1.99.77]:51216 "EHLO gir.skynet.ie" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751591Ab0K2J4g (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:56:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:56:19 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Kyle McMartin Cc: Andrew Morton , Shaohua Li , KOSAKI Motohiro , Christoph Lameter , David Rientjes , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , LKML , Linux-MM Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: page allocator: Adjust the per-cpu counter threshold when memory is low Message-ID: <20101129095618.GB13268@csn.ul.ie> References: <1288169256-7174-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1288169256-7174-2-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20101126160619.GP22651@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101126160619.GP22651@bombadil.infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:06:19AM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 09:47:35AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > To ensure that kswapd wakes up, a safe version of zone_watermark_ok() > > is introduced that takes a more accurate reading of NR_FREE_PAGES when > > called from wakeup_kswapd, when deciding whether it is really safe to go > > back to sleep in sleeping_prematurely() and when deciding if a zone is > > really balanced or not in balance_pgdat(). We are still using an expensive > > function but limiting how often it is called. > > > > Reported-by: Shaohua Li > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > > Hi Mel, > > I notice these aren't flagged for stable, should they be? (They fairly > trivially apply and compile on 2.6.36 barring the trace_ points which > changed.) They were not flagged for stable because they were performance rather than function bugs that affected a limited number of machines. Should that decision be revisited? > I've got a few bug reports against .36/.37 where kswapd has > been sleeping for 60s+. > I do not believe these patches would affect kswapd sleeping for 60s. > I built them some kernels with these patches, but haven't heard back yet > as to whether it fixes things for them. > > Thanks for any insight, Can you point me at a relevant bugzilla entry or forward me the bug report and I'll take a look? -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab