linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH 08/10] mm: deactivations shouldn't bias the LRU balance
Date: Mon,  6 Jun 2016 15:48:34 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160606194836.3624-9-hannes@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160606194836.3624-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org>

Operations like MADV_FREE, FADV_DONTNEED etc. currently move any
affected active pages to the inactive list to accelerate their reclaim
(good) but also steer page reclaim toward that LRU type, or away from
the other (bad).

The reason why this is undesirable is that such operations are not
part of the regular page aging cycle, and rather a fluke that doesn't
say much about the remaining pages on that list. They might all be in
heavy use. But once the chunk of easy victims has been purged, the VM
continues to apply elevated pressure on the remaining hot pages. The
other LRU, meanwhile, might have easily reclaimable pages, and there
was never a need to steer away from it in the first place.

As the previous patch outlined, we should focus on recording actually
observed cost to steer the balance rather than speculating about the
potential value of one LRU list over the other. In that spirit, leave
explicitely deactivated pages to the LRU algorithm to pick up, and let
rotations decide which list is the easiest to reclaim.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
---
 mm/swap.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
index 645d21242324..ae07b469ddca 100644
--- a/mm/swap.c
+++ b/mm/swap.c
@@ -538,7 +538,6 @@ static void lru_deactivate_file_fn(struct page *page, struct lruvec *lruvec,
 
 	if (active)
 		__count_vm_event(PGDEACTIVATE);
-	lru_note_cost(lruvec, !file, hpage_nr_pages(page));
 }
 
 
@@ -546,7 +545,6 @@ static void lru_deactivate_fn(struct page *page, struct lruvec *lruvec,
 			    void *arg)
 {
 	if (PageLRU(page) && PageActive(page) && !PageUnevictable(page)) {
-		int file = page_is_file_cache(page);
 		int lru = page_lru_base_type(page);
 
 		del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru + LRU_ACTIVE);
@@ -555,7 +553,6 @@ static void lru_deactivate_fn(struct page *page, struct lruvec *lruvec,
 		add_page_to_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru);
 
 		__count_vm_event(PGDEACTIVATE);
-		lru_note_cost(lruvec, !file, hpage_nr_pages(page));
 	}
 }
 
-- 
2.8.3

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-06-06 19:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-06 19:48 [PATCH 00/10] mm: balance LRU lists based on relative thrashing Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 01/10] mm: allow swappiness that prefers anon over file Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07  0:25   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-07 14:18     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08  0:06       ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08 15:58         ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-09  1:01           ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-09 13:32             ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 02/10] mm: swap: unexport __pagevec_lru_add() Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 21:32   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-07  9:07   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08  7:14   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 03/10] mm: fold and remove lru_cache_add_anon() and lru_cache_add_file() Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 21:33   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-07  9:12   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08  7:24   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 04/10] mm: fix LRU balancing effect of new transparent huge pages Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 21:36   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-07  9:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08  7:28   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 05/10] mm: remove LRU balancing effect of temporary page isolation Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 21:56   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-06 22:15     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07  1:11       ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-07 13:57         ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07  9:26       ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-07 14:06         ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07  9:49   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08  7:39   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08 16:02     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 06/10] mm: remove unnecessary use-once cache bias from LRU balancing Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07  2:20   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-07 14:11     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08  8:03   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08 12:31   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:13   ` kbuild test robot
2016-06-07  2:34   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-07 14:12     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08  8:14   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08 16:06     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08 12:51   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08 16:16     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-09 12:18       ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 13:33         ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2016-06-08  8:15   ` [PATCH 08/10] mm: deactivations shouldn't bias the LRU balance Minchan Kim
2016-06-08 12:57   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 09/10] mm: only count actual rotations as LRU reclaim cost Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08  8:19   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08 13:18   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 10/10] mm: balance LRU lists based on relative thrashing Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:22   ` kbuild test robot
2016-06-06 23:50   ` Tim Chen
2016-06-07 16:23     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07 19:56       ` Tim Chen
2016-06-08 13:58   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-10  2:19   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-13 15:52     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-15  2:23       ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-16 15:12         ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-17  7:49           ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-17 17:01             ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-20  7:42               ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-22 21:56                 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-24  6:22                   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-07  9:51 ` [PATCH 00/10] " Michal Hocko

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160606194836.3624-9-hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).