Re: [PATCH v3] mm: Make memory.emin the baseline for utilisation determination

[Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 02:15:25PM -0500, Chris Down wrote:
> Roman points out that when when we do the low reclaim pass, we scale the
> reclaim pressure relative to position between 0 and the maximum
> protection threshold.
> 
> However, if the maximum protection is based on memory.elow, and
> memory.emin is above zero, this means we still may get binary behaviour
> on second-pass low reclaim. This is because we scale starting at 0, not
> starting at memory.emin, and since we don't scan at all below emin, we
> end up with cliff behaviour.
> 
> This should be a fairly uncommon case since usually we don't go into the
> second pass, but it makes sense to scale our low reclaim pressure
> starting at emin.
> 
> You can test this by catting two large sparse files, one in a cgroup
> with emin set to some moderate size compared to physical RAM, and
> another cgroup without any emin. In both cgroups, set an elow larger
> than 50% of physical RAM. The one with emin will have less page
> scanning, as reclaim pressure is lower.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>
> Suggested-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> Cc: kernel-team@fb.com

Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>

Thanks!