summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>2011-07-08 15:39:38 -0700
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>2011-07-08 21:14:43 -0700
commitd7868dae893c83c50c7824bc2bc75f93d114669f (patch)
tree7c9e56513ecbbf086c81ebff77310f80e0232ecc
parent08951e545918c1594434d000d88a7793e2452a9b (diff)
downloadlinux-d7868dae893c83c50c7824bc2bc75f93d114669f.tar.bz2
mm: vmscan: do not apply pressure to slab if we are not applying pressure to zone
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> Cc: <stable@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
-rw-r--r--mm/vmscan.c23
1 files changed, 13 insertions, 10 deletions
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 04c49fe781fe..a0245861934a 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2510,18 +2510,18 @@ 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(&shrink, sc.nr_scanned, 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(&shrink, sc.nr_scanned, 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
@@ -2531,6 +2531,9 @@ 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;