linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch v2] mm, vmscan: avoid thrashing anon lru when free + file is low
Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 08:15:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170503061528.GB1236@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1705021331450.116499@chino.kir.corp.google.com>

On Tue 02-05-17 13:41:23, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2017, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > I have already asked and my questions were ignored. So let me ask again
> > and hopefuly not get ignored this time. So Why do we need a different
> > criterion on anon pages than file pages?
> 
> The preference in get_scan_count() as already implemented is to reclaim 
> from file pages if there is enough memory on the inactive list to reclaim.  
> That is unchanged with this patch.

My fault, I was too vague. My question was basically why should we use
a different criterion to SCAN_ANON than SCAN_FILE.

> > I do agree that blindly
> > scanning anon pages when file pages are low is very suboptimal but this
> > adds yet another heuristic without _any_ numbers. Why cannot we simply
> > treat anon and file pages equally? Something like the following
> > 
> > 	if (pgdatfile + pgdatanon + pgdatfree > 2*total_high_wmark) {
> > 		scan_balance = SCAN_FILE;
> > 		if (pgdatfile < pgdatanon)
> > 			scan_balance = SCAN_ANON;
> > 		goto out;
> > 	}
> > 
> 
> This would be substantially worse than the current code because it 
> thrashes the anon lru when anon out numbers file pages rather than at the 
> point we fall under the high watermarks for all eligible zones.  If you 
> tested your suggestion, you could see gigabytes of memory left untouched 
> on the file lru.  Anonymous memory is more probable to be part of the 
> working set.

This was supposed to be more an example of a direction I was thinking,
definitely not a final patch. I will think more to come up with a
more complete proposal.

> > Also it would help to describe the workload which can trigger this
> > behavior so that we can compare numbers before and after this patch.
> 
> Any workload that fills system RAM with anonymous memory that cannot be 
> reclaimed will thrash the anon lru without this patch.

I have already asked, but I do not understand why this anon memory
couldn't be reclaimed. Who is pinning it? Why cannot it be swapped out?
If it is mlocked it should be moved to unevictable LRU. What am I
missing?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-03  6:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-18  0:06 [patch] " 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 [this message]
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

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=20170503061528.GB1236@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=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --subject='Re: [patch v2] mm, vmscan: avoid thrashing anon lru when free + file is low' \
    /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

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).