Marcelo Tosatti <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 02:37:14AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Wu Fengguang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > The zone aging rates are currently imbalanced,
> >
> > ZONE_DMA is out of whack. It shouldn't be, and I'm not aware of anyone
> > getting in and working out why. I certainly wouldn't want to go and add
> > all this stuff without having a good understanding of _why_ it's out of
> > whack. Perhaps it's just some silly bug, like the thing I pointed at in
> > the previous email.
>
> I think that the problem is caused by the interaction between
> the way reclaiming is quantified and parallel allocators.
Could be. But what about the bug which I think is there? That'll cause
overscanning of the DMA zone.
> The zones have different sizes, and each zone reclaim iteration
> scans the same number of pages. It is unfair.
Nope. See how shrink_zone() bases nr_active and nr_inactive on
zone->nr_active and zone_nr_inactive. These calculations are intended to
cause the number of scanned pages in each zone to be
(zone->nr-active + zone->nr_inactive) >> sc->priority.
> On top of that, kswapd is likely to block while doing its job,
> which means that allocators have a chance to run.
kswapd should only block under rare circumstances - huge amounts of dirty
pages coming off the tail of the LRU.
> --- mm/vmscan.c.orig 2006-01-01 12:44:39.000000000 -0200
> +++ mm/vmscan.c 2006-01-01 16:43:54.000000000 -0200
> @@ -616,8 +616,12 @@
> {
Please use `diff -p'.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
