Re: [PATCH 1/3] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when zone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> > > > Here it is just recording the jiffies value. The real smarts with the counter
> > > > use time_before() which I assumed could handle jiffie wrap-arounds. Even
> > > > if it doesn't, the consequence is that one scan will occur that could have
> > > > been avoided around the time of the jiffie wraparound. The value will then
> > > > be reset and it will be fine.
> > > 
> > > time_before() assume two argument are enough nearly time.
> > > if we use 32bit cpu and HZ=1000, about jiffies wraparound about one month.
> > > 
> > > Then, 
> > > 
> > > 1. zone reclaim failure occur
> > > 2. system works fine for one month
> > > 3. jiffies wrap and time_before() makes mis-calculation.
> > > 
> > 
> > And the scan occurs uselessly and zone_reclaim_failure gets set again.
> > I believe the one useless scan is not significant enough to warrent dealing
> > with jiffie wraparound.
> 
> Thank you for kindful explanation.
> I fully agreed.

Bah, no, not agreed.
simple last failure recording makes following scenario.


1. zone reclaim failure occur. update zone_reclaim_failure.
      ^
      |  time_before() return 1, and zone_reclaim() return immediately.
      v
2. after 32 second.
      ^
      |  time_before() return 0, and zone_reclaim() works normally
      v
3. after one month
      ^
      |  time_before() return 1, and zone_reclaim() return immediately.
      |  although recent zone_reclaim() never failed.
      v
4. after more one month
      



--
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/