From: zhong jiang <zhongjiang-ali@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Do not deactivate when the cgroup has plenty inactive page
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 22:21:58 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b9ccbec4-0d78-69d7-d7b5-1811b82c62db@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200929160207.GK2277@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 2020/9/30 12:02 上午, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 27-09-20 10:39:22, zhong jiang wrote:
>> On 2020/9/25 8:07 下午, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Fri 25-09-20 19:49:12, zhongjiang-ali wrote:
>>>> After appling the series patches(mm: fix page aging across multiple cgroups),
>>>> cgroup memory reclaim strategy is based on reclaim root's inactive:active
>>>> ratio. if the target lruvec need to deactivate, its children cgroup also will
>>>> deactivate. That will result in hot page to be reclaimed and other cgroup's
>>>> cold page will be left, which is not expected.
>>>>
>>>> The patch will not force deactivate when inactive_is_low is not true unless
>>>> we has scanned the inactive list and memory is unable to reclaim.
>>> Do you have any data to present?
>> I write an testcase that cgroup B has a lot of hot pagecache and cgroup C
>> is full of cold pagecache. and
>>
>> their parent cgroup A will trigger the reclaim due of it's limit has been
>> breached.
>>
>>
>> The testcase should assume that we should not reclaim the hot pagecache in
>> cgroup B because C has
>>
>> plenty cold pagecache. Unfortunately, I can see cgroup B hot pagecache
>> has been decreased when
>>
>> cgroup A trigger the reclaim.
> Thank you, this is more or less what've expected from your initial
> description. An extended form would be preferable for the changelog to
> make the setup more clear. But you still haven't quantified the effect.
> It would be also good to describe what is the effect on the workload
> described by 53138cea7f39 ("mm: vmscan: move file exhaustion detection
> to the node level"). A more extended description on the implementation
> would be nice as well.
Hi, Michal
I'm sorry for lately reply due of a long vacation. But that indeed
breach the initial purpose.
Do you think the patch make sense, or any benchmark can be recommended
to get some data.
Thank,
zhing jiang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-14 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-25 11:49 [PATCH] mm: Do not deactivate when the cgroup has plenty inactive page zhongjiang-ali
2020-09-25 12:07 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-27 2:39 ` zhong jiang
2020-09-29 16:02 ` Michal Hocko
2020-10-14 14:21 ` zhong jiang [this message]
2020-10-14 14:47 ` Michal Hocko
2020-10-14 16:57 ` zhong jiang
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=b9ccbec4-0d78-69d7-d7b5-1811b82c62db@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=zhongjiang-ali@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.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).