From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752644AbbJWSX7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:23:59 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.220.47]:32849 "EHLO mail-pa0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750843AbbJWSXz (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:23:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 03:23:43 +0900 From: Tejun Heo To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: mhocko@kernel.org, cl@linux.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, rientjes@google.com, oleg@redhat.com, kwalker@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov@parallels.com, skozina@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de, riel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm,vmscan: Use accurate values for zone_reclaimable() checks Message-ID: <20151023182343.GB14610@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <20151022154922.GG26854@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20151022184226.GA19289@mtj.duckdns.org> <20151023083316.GB2410@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20151023103630.GA4170@mtj.duckdns.org> <20151023111145.GH2410@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201510232125.DAG82381.LMJtOQFOHVOSFF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201510232125.DAG82381.LMJtOQFOHVOSFF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Tetsuo. On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 09:25:11PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > WQ_MEM_RECLAIM only guarantees that a "struct task_struct" is preallocated > in order to avoid failing to allocate it on demand due to a GFP_KERNEL > allocation? Is this correct? > > WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE only guarantees that work items don't participate in > concurrency management in order to avoid failing to wake up a "struct > task_struct" which will process the work items? Is this correct? CPU_INTENSIVE avoids the tail end of concurrency management. The previous HIGHPRI or the posted IMMEDIATE avoids the head end. > Is Michal's question "does it make sense to use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM without > WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE"? In other words, any "struct task_struct" which calls > rescuer_thread() must imply WQ_CPU_INTENSIVE in order to avoid failing to > wake up due to being participated in concurrency management? If this is an actual problem, a better approach would be something which detects the stall condition and kicks off the next work item but if we do that I think I'd still trigger a warning there. I don't know. Don't go busy waiting in kernel. Thanks. -- tejun