From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, vmscan: avoid thrashing anon lru when free + file is low
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 09:11:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170418071153.GC22360@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1704171657550.139497@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Mon 17-04-17 17:06:20, David Rientjes wrote:
> The purpose of the code that commit 623762517e23 ("revert 'mm: vmscan: do
> not swap anon pages just because free+file is low'") reintroduces is to
> prefer swapping anonymous memory rather than trashing the file lru.
>
> If all anonymous memory is unevictable, however, this insistance on
> SCAN_ANON ends up thrashing that lru instead.
Why would be the anonymous memory unevictable? If the swap is depleted
then we enforce file scanning AFAIR. Are those pages pinned somehow, by
who? It would be great if you could describe the workload which triggers
a problem which you are trying to fix.
> Check that enough evictable anon memory is actually on this lruvec before
> insisting on SCAN_ANON. SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX is used as the threshold to
> determine if only scanning anon is beneficial.
>
> Otherwise, fallback to balanced reclaim so the file lru doesn't remain
> untouched.
Why should we treat anonymous and file pages any different here. In
other words why should file pages check for high wmark and anonymous for
SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX.
[...]
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-18 7:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-18 0:06 [patch] mm, vmscan: avoid thrashing anon lru when free + file is low David Rientjes
2017-04-18 1:36 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-18 21:32 ` David Rientjes
2017-04-19 0:14 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-19 23:24 ` David Rientjes
2017-04-20 6:09 ` Minchan Kim
2017-05-01 21:34 ` [patch v2] " David Rientjes
2017-05-02 8:02 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-02 20:41 ` David Rientjes
2017-05-03 6:15 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-03 7:06 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-03 8:49 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-03 22:52 ` David Rientjes
2017-05-04 11:43 ` Michal Hocko
2017-05-31 15:20 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-02 20:36 ` Andrew Morton
2017-06-04 22:27 ` David Rientjes
2017-04-19 7:04 ` [patch] " Michal Hocko
2017-04-18 7:11 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
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=20170418071153.GC22360@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=rientjes@google.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).