Re: [PATCH] vmscan: synchronous lumpy reclaim don't call congestion_wait()
From: Minchan Kim
Date: Mon Aug 02 2010 - 00:38:35 EST
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:13 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
>> Hi KOSAKI,
>> On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 06:12:47PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> > rebased onto Wu's patch
>> > ----------------------------------------------
>> > From 35772ad03e202c1c9a2252de3a9d3715e30d180f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> > From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 17:23:41 +0900
>> > Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: synchronous lumpy reclaim don't call congestion_wait()
>> > congestion_wait() mean "waiting for number of requests in IO queue is
>> > under congestion threshold".
>> > That said, if the system have plenty dirty pages, flusher thread push
>> > new request to IO queue conteniously. So, IO queue are not cleared
>> > congestion status for a long time. thus, congestion_wait(HZ/10) is
>> > almostly equivalent schedule_timeout(HZ/10).
>> Just a nitpick.
>> Why is it a problem?
>> HZ/10 is upper bound we intended. If is is rahter high, we can low it.
>> But totally I agree on this patch. It would be better to remove it
>> than lowing.
> because all of _unnecessary_ sleep is evil. the problem is, congestion_wait()
> mean "wait until queue congestion will be cleared, iow, wait all of IO".
> but we want to wait until _my_ IO finished.
> So, if flusher thread conteniously push new IO into the queue, that makes
> big difference.
Agree. Please include this explanation in description to make it kind
if you resent this patch.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/