summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>2011-07-11 10:11:21 +0100
committerGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>2011-08-03 12:42:47 -0700
commit2de64879148c55b02528bb7e217edc8a1699d812 (patch)
tree58c1598c41873e6eef85ce6b6089d1989645717f
parent0388b9459eb4752072e4b3b61e809d3678f0bf45 (diff)
mm: vmscan: do not apply pressure to slab if we are not applying pressure to zone
commit d7868dae893c83c50c7824bc2bc75f93d114669f upstream During allocator-intensive workloads, kswapd will be woken frequently causing free memory to oscillate between the high and min watermark. This is expected behaviour. When kswapd applies pressure to zones during node balancing, it checks if the zone is above a high+balance_gap threshold. If it is, it does not apply pressure but it unconditionally shrinks slab on a global basis which is excessive. In the event kswapd is being kept awake due to a high small unreclaimable zone, it skips zone shrinking but still calls shrink_slab(). Once pressure has been applied, the check for zone being unreclaimable is being made before the check is made if all_unreclaimable should be set. This miss of unreclaimable can cause has_under_min_watermark_zone to be set due to an unreclaimable zone preventing kswapd backing off on congestion_wait(). Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Reported-by: Pádraig Brady <P@draigBrady.com> Tested-by: Pádraig Brady <P@draigBrady.com> Tested-by: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
-rw-r--r--mm/vmscan.c25
1 files changed, 14 insertions, 11 deletions
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 1fad06a2fe5e..81e4e1b353c4 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2449,19 +2449,19 @@ loop_again:
KSWAPD_ZONE_BALANCE_GAP_RATIO);
if (!zone_watermark_ok_safe(zone, order,
high_wmark_pages(zone) + balance_gap,
- end_zone, 0))
+ end_zone, 0)) {
shrink_zone(priority, zone, &sc);
- reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab = 0;
- nr_slab = shrink_slab(sc.nr_scanned, GFP_KERNEL,
- lru_pages);
- sc.nr_reclaimed += reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab;
- total_scanned += sc.nr_scanned;
- if (zone->all_unreclaimable)
- continue;
- if (nr_slab == 0 &&
- !zone_reclaimable(zone))
- zone->all_unreclaimable = 1;
+ reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab = 0;
+ nr_slab = shrink_slab(sc.nr_scanned, GFP_KERNEL,
+ lru_pages);
+ sc.nr_reclaimed += reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab;
+ total_scanned += sc.nr_scanned;
+
+ if (nr_slab == 0 && !zone_reclaimable(zone))
+ zone->all_unreclaimable = 1;
+ }
+
/*
* If we've done a decent amount of scanning and
* the reclaim ratio is low, start doing writepage
@@ -2471,6 +2471,9 @@ loop_again:
total_scanned > sc.nr_reclaimed + sc.nr_reclaimed / 2)
sc.may_writepage = 1;
+ if (zone->all_unreclaimable)
+ continue;
+
if (!zone_watermark_ok_safe(zone, order,
high_wmark_pages(zone), end_zone, 0)) {
all_zones_ok = 0;