Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ksm: provide support to use deferrable timers for scanner thread

[Hugh Dickins]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Chintan Pandya wrote:

> I don't mean to divert the thread too much. But just one suggestion offered
> by Harshad.
> 
> Why can't we stop invoking more of a KSM scanner thread when we are
> saturating from savings ? But again, to check whether savings are saturated
> or not, we may still want to rely upon timers and we have to wake the CPUs up
> from IDLE state.

I agree that it should make sense for KSM to slow down when it sees it's
making no progress (though that would depart from the pages_to_scan and
sleep_millisecs prescription - perhaps could be tied to sleep_millisecs 0).

But not stop.  That's the problem we're mainly concerned with here:
to save power we need it to stop, but then how to wake up, without
putting nasty hooks in hot paths for a minority interest?
I don't see an answer to that above.

Hugh
--
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/