On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 03:04:31PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> @@ -3299,20 +3191,37 @@ static int balance_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int order, 
> int classzone_idx)
>                       break;
>  
>               /*
> +              * Stop reclaiming if any eligible zone is balanced and clear
> +              * node writeback or congested.
> +              */
> +             for (i = 0; i <= classzone_idx; i++) {
> +                     zone = pgdat->node_zones + i;
> +                     if (!populated_zone(zone))
> +                             continue;
> +
> +                     if (zone_balanced(zone, sc.order, 0, classzone_idx)) {
> +                             clear_bit(PGDAT_CONGESTED, &pgdat->flags);
> +                             clear_bit(PGDAT_DIRTY, &pgdat->flags);
> +                             goto out;
> +                     }
> +             }
> +
> +             /*
>                * Raise priority if scanning rate is too low or there was no
>                * progress in reclaiming pages
>                */
>               if (raise_priority || !sc.nr_reclaimed)
>                       sc.priority--;
> -     } while (sc.priority >= 1 &&
> -                     !pgdat_balanced(pgdat, order, classzone_idx));
> +     } while (sc.priority >= 1);
>  
>  out:
>       /*
> -      * Return the highest zone idx we were reclaiming at so
> -      * prepare_kswapd_sleep() makes the same decisions as here.
> +      * Return the order we were reclaiming at so prepare_kswapd_sleep()
> +      * makes a decision on the order we were last reclaiming at. However,
> +      * if another caller entered the allocator slow path while kswapd
> +      * was awake, order will remain at the higher level
>        */
> -     return end_zone;
> +     return order;

It's sc.order that's updated based on fragmentation, not order.

There is also a now-stale comment above the function saying it returns
the highest reclaimed zone index.

Otherwise, the patch looks good to me.

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <[email protected]>

Reply via email to