Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] mm: multigenerational lru: aging

[Alexey Avramov <hakavlad0@seznam.cz>]

> But the later one is more complex and a proper
> handling really depends on the particular workload

That is why I advocate the introduction of new tunables.

> There are workloads which prefer a temporary trashing over its working
> set during a peak memory demand rather than an OOM kill

OK, for such cases, the OOM handles can be set to 0.
It can even be the default value.

> On the other side workloads that are
> latency sensitive

I daresay that this is the case with most workloads.
An internet server that falls into thrashing is a dead server.

> no simple solution can be applied to the whole

There are several solutions and they can be taken into the kernel
at the same time, they all work:
- min_ttl_ms + MGLRU
- vm.min_filelist_kbytes-like knobs
- PSI-based solutions.

> For the most steady trashing situations I have
> seen the userspace with mlocked memory and the code can make a forward
> progress and mediate the situation.

I still don't see a problem in making all the kernel-space solutions
in the kernel.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel