From d37dd5dcb955dd8c2cdd4eaef1f15d1b7ecbc379 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fengguang Wu Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:23:28 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: comment too_many_isolated() Comment "Why it's doing so" rather than "What it does" as proposed by Andrew Morton. Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel Cc: Mel Gorman Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- mm/vmscan.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 7f3096137b8a..e73d0206dddd 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -1177,7 +1177,11 @@ int isolate_lru_page(struct page *page) } /* - * Are there way too many processes in the direct reclaim path already? + * A direct reclaimer may isolate SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages from the LRU list and + * then get resheduled. When there are massive number of tasks doing page + * allocation, such sleeping direct reclaimers may keep piling up on each CPU, + * the LRU list will go small and be scanned faster than necessary, leading to + * unnecessary swapping, thrashing and OOM. */ static int too_many_isolated(struct zone *zone, int file, struct scan_control *sc) -- 2.30.2