Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Here is a demo patch. If you can join analysis of why memory allocation
> function cannot return for more than 15 minutes under severe memory pressure,
> I'll invite you to private discussion in order to share steps for reproducing
> such memory pressure. A quick test says tha
Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> We need some more changes. I'm thinking memory allocation watchdog thread.
> Add an "unsigned long" field to "struct task_struct", set jiffies to the field
> upon entry of GFP_WAIT-able memory allocation attempts, and clear the field
> upon returning from GFP_WAIT-able memory
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:45:26PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 May 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >
> > > In shrink_inactive_list(), we do not insert delay at
> > >
> > > if (!sc->hibernation_mode && !current_is_kswapd())
> > > wait_iff_congested(zone, BLK
David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2014, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> > In shrink_inactive_list(), we do not insert delay at
> >
> > if (!sc->hibernation_mode && !current_is_kswapd())
> > wait_iff_congested(zone, BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10);
> >
> > if sc->hibernation_mode != 0.
> > Follow the sam
oundation.org;
> h...@infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; x...@oss.sgi.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: Do not block forever at
> shrink_inactive_list().
>
> Today I discussed with Kosaki-san at LinuxCon Japan 2014 about this issue.
> He does not like the idea of addi
Today I discussed with Kosaki-san at LinuxCon Japan 2014 about this issue.
He does not like the idea of adding timeout to throttle loop. As Dave
posted a patch that fixes a bug in XFS delayed allocation, I updated
my patch accordingly.
Although the bug in XFS was fixed by Dave's patch, other kerne
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:59:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> So current_is_kswapd() returns true for a thread which is not kswapd.
> That's a bit smelly.
>
> Should this thread really be incrementing KSWAPD_INODESTEAL instead of
> PGINODESTEAL, for example? current_is_kswapd() does a range o
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:03:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014 22:59:15 -0700 Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 May 2014 10:44:49 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -258,14 +258,23 @@ xfs_bmapi_allocate_worker(
> > > struct xfs_bmalloca *args = container_o
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:59:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2014 10:44:49 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > @@ -258,14 +258,23 @@ xfs_bmapi_allocate_worker(
> > struct xfs_bmalloca *args = container_of(work,
> > struct xfs_bmal
On Mon, 19 May 2014 22:59:15 -0700 Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2014 10:44:49 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > @@ -258,14 +258,23 @@ xfs_bmapi_allocate_worker(
> > struct xfs_bmalloca *args = container_of(work,
> > struct xfs_bmalloca
On Tue, 20 May 2014 10:44:49 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote:
> @@ -258,14 +258,23 @@ xfs_bmapi_allocate_worker(
> struct xfs_bmalloca *args = container_of(work,
> struct xfs_bmalloca, work);
> unsigned long pflags;
> + unsigned
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:54:29PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Dave Chinner wrote:
> > So, XFS should be passing kswapd context to the workqueue allocation
> > context. The patch below does this.
> >
> > Tetsuo-san, when it comes to problems involving XFS, you should
> > really CC x...@oss.sgi.co
Dave Chinner wrote:
> So, XFS should be passing kswapd context to the workqueue allocation
> context. The patch below does this.
>
> Tetsuo-san, when it comes to problems involving XFS, you should
> really CC x...@oss.sgi.com because very few people really know how
> XFS works and even fewer still
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Tetsuo Handa
wrote:
>
> Since the kernel worker thread needs to escape from the while loop so that
> alloc_page() can allocate memory (and eventually allow xfs_vm_writepage()
> to release memory), I think that we should not block forever. This patch
> introduces 3
[cc x...@oss.sgi.com]
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:40:46PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >From f016db5d7f84d6321132150b13c5888ef67d694f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa
> Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:24:11 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: Do not block forever at shrin
On 05/19/2014 10:40 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>From f016db5d7f84d6321132150b13c5888ef67d694f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa
> Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:24:11 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: Do not block forever at shrink_inactive_list().
>
> I can observe
>From f016db5d7f84d6321132150b13c5888ef67d694f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tetsuo Handa
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:24:11 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: Do not block forever at shrink_inactive_list().
I can observe that commit 35cd7815 "vmscan: throttle direct reclaim when
too many p
17 matches
Mail list logo
