On 03/02/2016 03:22 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 2016-03-02 23:09 GMT+09:00 Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]>:
>> 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);
I'm more inclined to fold it in that case.
> Thanks.
>
>>> Result of patch 4
>>> and patch 5 would be same.
>>
>>
>> It's certainly possible to fold patch 5 into 4. I posted them separately
>> mainly to make review more feasible. But the differences in results are
>> already quite small.
>>
