Re: [PATCH] Re: kswapd stuck using 100% CPU
From: Mel Gorman
Date: Mon Mar 26 2012 - 09:56:29 EST
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 01:40:41PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:26:21AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >> Only test compaction_suitable if the kernel is built with CONFIG_COMPACTION,
> >> otherwise the stub compaction_suitable function will always return
> >> COMPACT_SKIPPED and send kswapd into an infinite loop.
> >> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reported-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>
> The API looks fragile and this patch isn't exactly making it any
> better. Why don't we make compaction_suitable() return something other
> than COMPACT_SKIPPED for !CONFIG_COMPACTION case?
Returning COMPACT_PARTIAL or COMPACT_CONTINUE would confuse the check in
should_continue_reclaim. A fourth return type could be added but an
obvious name does not spring to mind that would end up being similar to
just adding a CONFIG_COMPACTION check.
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/