From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] mm: make kswapd try harder to keep active pages in cache
Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 14:24:48 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1493835888.20270.4.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1493760444-18250-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1352 bytes --]
On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 17:27 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> + /*
> + * If we don't have a lot of inactive or slab pages then
> there's no
> + * point in trying to free them exclusively, do the normal
> scan stuff.
> + */
> + if (nr_inactive < total_high_wmark && nr_slab <
> total_high_wmark)
> + sc->inactive_only = 0;
This part looks good. Below this point, there is obviously no
point in skipping the active list.
> + if (!global_reclaim(sc))
> + sc->inactive_only = 0;
Why the different behaviour with and without cgroups?
Have you tested both of these?
> + /*
> + * We still want to slightly prefer slab over inactive, so
> if inactive
> + * is large enough just skip slab shrinking for now. If we
> aren't able
> + * to reclaim enough exclusively from the inactive lists
> then we'll
> + * reset this on the first loop and dip into slab.
> + */
> + if (nr_inactive > total_high_wmark && nr_inactive > nr_slab)
> + skip_slab = true;
I worry that this may be a little too aggressive,
and result in the slab cache growing much larger
than it should be on some systems.
I wonder if it may make more sense to have the
aggressiveness of slab scanning depend on the
ratio of inactive to reclaimable slab pages, rather
than having a hard cut-off like this?
--
All rights reversed
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1942 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-03 18:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-02 21:27 [PATCH][RFC] mm: make kswapd try harder to keep active pages in cache Josef Bacik
2017-05-03 18:24 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2017-05-03 18:38 ` Josef Bacik
2017-05-03 19:20 ` Rik van Riel
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=1493835888.20270.4.camel@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.