From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753922Ab2ELWV3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 May 2012 18:21:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5006 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752551Ab2ELWV2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 May 2012 18:21:28 -0400 Message-ID: <4FAEE256.7000403@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 18:21:10 -0400 From: Rik van Riel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Satoru Moriya CC: KOSAKI Motohiro , Jerome Marchand , KOSAKI Motohiro , "jweiner@redhat.com" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "lwoodman@redhat.com" , "dle-develop@lists.sourceforge.net" , Seiji Aguchi Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] avoid swapping out with swappiness==0 References: <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9CB9455FE2@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> <20120305215602.GA1693@redhat.com> <4F5798B1.5070005@jp.fujitsu.com> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9CB951A45F@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9C01454D13A6@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> <4F7ADE1A.2050004@redhat.com> <4F7C870B.6020807@gmail.com> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9C014575D8CF@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9C01583B4D7C@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> In-Reply-To: <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9C01583B4D7C@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/11/2012 05:11 PM, Satoru Moriya wrote: > On 04/20/2012 08:21 PM, Satoru Moriya wrote: >> Ah yes, it is not so small now. >> On 4GB server, without THP min_free_kbytes is 8113 but with THP it is >> 67584. >> >> How about using low watermark or min watermark? >> Are they still big? >> >> ...or should we use other value? > > What do you think of the idea above? I believe that using the high watermark is just fine. We want to start swapping, before the page cache is so small that we start thrashing from that. > So, I propose that we start with applying this patch first > and then discuss/improve the threshold. > > The patch may not be perfect but, at least, we can improve > the kernel behavior in the enough filebacked memory case > with this patch. I believe it's better than nothing. Agreed. -- All rights reversed From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx161.postini.com [74.125.245.161]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C2776B004D for ; Sat, 12 May 2012 18:21:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FAEE256.7000403@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 18:21:10 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] avoid swapping out with swappiness==0 References: <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9CB9455FE2@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> <20120305215602.GA1693@redhat.com> <4F5798B1.5070005@jp.fujitsu.com> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9CB951A45F@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9C01454D13A6@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> <4F7ADE1A.2050004@redhat.com> <4F7C870B.6020807@gmail.com> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9C014575D8CF@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9C01583B4D7C@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> In-Reply-To: <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9C01583B4D7C@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Satoru Moriya Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Jerome Marchand , KOSAKI Motohiro , "jweiner@redhat.com" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "lwoodman@redhat.com" , "dle-develop@lists.sourceforge.net" , Seiji Aguchi On 05/11/2012 05:11 PM, Satoru Moriya wrote: > On 04/20/2012 08:21 PM, Satoru Moriya wrote: >> Ah yes, it is not so small now. >> On 4GB server, without THP min_free_kbytes is 8113 but with THP it is >> 67584. >> >> How about using low watermark or min watermark? >> Are they still big? >> >> ...or should we use other value? > > What do you think of the idea above? I believe that using the high watermark is just fine. We want to start swapping, before the page cache is so small that we start thrashing from that. > So, I propose that we start with applying this patch first > and then discuss/improve the threshold. > > The patch may not be perfect but, at least, we can improve > the kernel behavior in the enough filebacked memory case > with this patch. I believe it's better than nothing. Agreed. -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org