On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:57:56PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
> either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
> This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
But the priority
Hi Mel,
On 04/11/2013 06:01 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:21:42PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
@@ -2673,9 +2674,15 @@ static bool kswapd_shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
sc->nr_to_reclaim = max(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, high_wmark_pages(zone));
shrink_zone(zone, sc);
- r
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:21:42PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > @@ -2673,9 +2674,15 @@ static bool kswapd_shrink_zone(struct zone *zone,
> > > > sc->nr_to_reclaim = max(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX,
> > > > high_wmark_pages(zone));
> > > > shrink_zone(zone, sc);
> > > >
> > > > -
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:07:34AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >
> > > I think that outside of zone loop is better place to run shrink_slab(),
> > > because shrink_slab()
Hello, Dave.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:07:34AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >
> > > I think that outside of zone loop is better place to run shrink_slab(),
> > > because
Hello, Mel.
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Hello, Mel.
> > Sorry for too late question.
> >
>
> No need to apologise at all.
>
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > If
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > I think that outside of zone loop is better place to run shrink_slab(),
> > because shrink_slab() is not directly related to a specific zone.
> >
>
> This is true and
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Hello, Mel.
> Sorry for too late question.
>
No need to apologise at all.
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
> > either discard a
Hi Joonsoo,
On 04/09/2013 02:53 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
Hello, Mel.
Sorry for too late question.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrin
Hello, Mel.
Sorry for too late question.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:14PM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
> either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
> This patch causes kswapd to only call the shri
On 03/17/2013 09:04 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
Acked-by:
On Sun 17-03-13 13:04:14, Mel Gorman wrote:
> If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
> either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
> This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
Mel Gorman writes:
> If kswaps fails to make progress but continues to shrink slab then it'll
> either discard all of slab or consume CPU uselessly scanning shrinkers.
> This patch causes kswapd to only call the shrinkers once per priority.
Great. This was too aggressive for a long time. Probabl
13 matches
Mail list logo
