From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932939Ab3DGHcY (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Apr 2013 03:32:24 -0400 Received: from mail-ia0-f171.google.com ([209.85.210.171]:53228 "EHLO mail-ia0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932921Ab3DGHcW (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Apr 2013 03:32:22 -0400 Message-ID: <516120FA.6060303@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:32:10 +0800 From: Will Huck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rik van Riel CC: Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , Linux-MM , Jiri Slaby , Valdis Kletnieks , Zlatko Calusic , dormando , Satoru Moriya , Michal Hocko , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm: vmscan: Limit the number of pages kswapd reclaims at each priority References: <1363525456-10448-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1363525456-10448-2-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20130321155705.GA27848@cmpxchg.org> <514BA04D.2090002@gmail.com> <514BD56F.6050709@redhat.com> <514BD665.5020803@gmail.com> <514BE54C.4050106@gmail.com> <514C5640.8000902@redhat.com> <515E1548.5040801@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <515E1548.5040801@gmail.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 Ping Rik. On 04/05/2013 08:05 AM, Will Huck wrote: > Hi Rik, > On 03/22/2013 09:01 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: >> On 03/22/2013 12:59 AM, Will Huck wrote: >>> Hi Rik, >>> On 03/22/2013 11:56 AM, Will Huck wrote: >>>> Hi Rik, >>>> On 03/22/2013 11:52 AM, Rik van Riel wrote: >>>>> On 03/21/2013 08:05 PM, Will Huck wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> One offline question, how to understand this in function >>>>>> balance_pgdat: >>>>>> /* >>>>>> * Do some background aging of the anon list, to give >>>>>> * pages a chance to be referenced before reclaiming. >>>>>> */ >>>>>> age_acitve_anon(zone, &sc); >>>>> >>>>> The anon lrus use a two-handed clock algorithm. New anonymous pages >>>>> start off on the active anon list. Older anonymous pages get moved >>>>> to the inactive anon list. >>>> >>>> The file lrus also use the two-handed clock algorithm, correct? >>> >>> After reinvestigate the codes, the answer is no. But why have this >>> difference? I think you are the expert for this question, expect your >>> explanation. :-) >> >> Anonymous memory has a smaller amount of memory (on the order >> of system memory), most of which is or has been in a working >> set at some point. >> >> File system cache tends to have two distinct sets. One part >> are the frequently accessed files, another part are the files >> that are accessed just once or twice. >> >> The file working set needs to be protected from streaming >> IO. We do this by having new file pages start out on the > > Is there streaming IO workload or benchmark? > >> inactive file list, and only promoted to the active file >> list if they get accessed twice. >> >> > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx203.postini.com [74.125.245.203]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F0AAD6B0005 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 03:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ia0-f180.google.com with SMTP id f27so4244016iae.39 for ; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 00:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <516120FA.6060303@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:32:10 +0800 From: Will Huck MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm: vmscan: Limit the number of pages kswapd reclaims at each priority References: <1363525456-10448-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1363525456-10448-2-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20130321155705.GA27848@cmpxchg.org> <514BA04D.2090002@gmail.com> <514BD56F.6050709@redhat.com> <514BD665.5020803@gmail.com> <514BE54C.4050106@gmail.com> <514C5640.8000902@redhat.com> <515E1548.5040801@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <515E1548.5040801@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Johannes Weiner , Mel Gorman , Linux-MM , Jiri Slaby , Valdis Kletnieks , Zlatko Calusic , dormando , Satoru Moriya , Michal Hocko , LKML Ping Rik. On 04/05/2013 08:05 AM, Will Huck wrote: > Hi Rik, > On 03/22/2013 09:01 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: >> On 03/22/2013 12:59 AM, Will Huck wrote: >>> Hi Rik, >>> On 03/22/2013 11:56 AM, Will Huck wrote: >>>> Hi Rik, >>>> On 03/22/2013 11:52 AM, Rik van Riel wrote: >>>>> On 03/21/2013 08:05 PM, Will Huck wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> One offline question, how to understand this in function >>>>>> balance_pgdat: >>>>>> /* >>>>>> * Do some background aging of the anon list, to give >>>>>> * pages a chance to be referenced before reclaiming. >>>>>> */ >>>>>> age_acitve_anon(zone, &sc); >>>>> >>>>> The anon lrus use a two-handed clock algorithm. New anonymous pages >>>>> start off on the active anon list. Older anonymous pages get moved >>>>> to the inactive anon list. >>>> >>>> The file lrus also use the two-handed clock algorithm, correct? >>> >>> After reinvestigate the codes, the answer is no. But why have this >>> difference? I think you are the expert for this question, expect your >>> explanation. :-) >> >> Anonymous memory has a smaller amount of memory (on the order >> of system memory), most of which is or has been in a working >> set at some point. >> >> File system cache tends to have two distinct sets. One part >> are the frequently accessed files, another part are the files >> that are accessed just once or twice. >> >> The file working set needs to be protected from streaming >> IO. We do this by having new file pages start out on the > > Is there streaming IO workload or benchmark? > >> inactive file list, and only promoted to the active file >> list if they get accessed twice. >> >> > -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org