All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] mm: remove unnecessary use-once cache bias from LRU balancing
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:11:24 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160607141124.GC9978@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1465266031.16365.153.camel@redhat.com>

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:20:31PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > When the splitlru patches divided page cache and swap-backed pages
> > into separate LRU lists, the pressure balance between the lists was
> > biased to account for the fact that streaming IO can cause memory
> > pressure with a flood of pages that are used only once. New page
> > cache
> > additions would tip the balance toward the file LRU, and repeat
> > access
> > would neutralize that bias again. This ensured that page reclaim
> > would
> > always go for used-once cache first.
> > 
> > Since e9868505987a ("mm,vmscan: only evict file pages when we have
> > plenty"), page reclaim generally skips over swap-backed memory
> > entirely as long as there is used-once cache present, and will apply
> > the LRU balancing when only repeatedly accessed cache pages are left
> > -
> > at which point the previous use-once bias will have been neutralized.
> > 
> > This makes the use-once cache balancing bias unnecessary. Remove it.
> > 
> 
> The code in get_scan_count() still seems to use the statistics
> of which you just removed the updating.
> 
> What am I overlooking?

As I mentioned in 5/10, page reclaim still does updates for each
scanned page and rotated page at this point in the series.

This merely removes the pre-reclaim bias for cache.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] mm: remove unnecessary use-once cache bias from LRU balancing
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 10:11:24 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160607141124.GC9978@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1465266031.16365.153.camel@redhat.com>

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:20:31PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > When the splitlru patches divided page cache and swap-backed pages
> > into separate LRU lists, the pressure balance between the lists was
> > biased to account for the fact that streaming IO can cause memory
> > pressure with a flood of pages that are used only once. New page
> > cache
> > additions would tip the balance toward the file LRU, and repeat
> > access
> > would neutralize that bias again. This ensured that page reclaim
> > would
> > always go for used-once cache first.
> > 
> > Since e9868505987a ("mm,vmscan: only evict file pages when we have
> > plenty"), page reclaim generally skips over swap-backed memory
> > entirely as long as there is used-once cache present, and will apply
> > the LRU balancing when only repeatedly accessed cache pages are left
> > -
> > at which point the previous use-once bias will have been neutralized.
> > 
> > This makes the use-once cache balancing bias unnecessary. Remove it.
> > 
> 
> The code in get_scan_count() still seems to use the statistics
> of which you just removed the updating.
> 
> What am I overlooking?

As I mentioned in 5/10, page reclaim still does updates for each
scanned page and rotated page at this point in the series.

This merely removes the pre-reclaim bias for cache.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-07 14:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 125+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-06 19:48 [PATCH 00/10] mm: balance LRU lists based on relative thrashing Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 01/10] mm: allow swappiness that prefers anon over file Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48   ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07  0:25   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-07  0:25     ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-07 14:18     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07 14:18       ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08  0:06       ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08  0:06         ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08 15:58         ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08 15:58           ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-09  1:01           ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-09  1:01             ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-09 13:32             ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-09 13:32               ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 02/10] mm: swap: unexport __pagevec_lru_add() Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48   ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 21:32   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-07  9:07   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-07  9:07     ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08  7:14   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08  7:14     ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 03/10] mm: fold and remove lru_cache_add_anon() and lru_cache_add_file() Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48   ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 21:33   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-07  9:12   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-07  9:12     ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08  7:24   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08  7:24     ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 04/10] mm: fix LRU balancing effect of new transparent huge pages Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48   ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 21:36   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-07  9:19   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-07  9:19     ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08  7:28   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08  7:28     ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 05/10] mm: remove LRU balancing effect of temporary page isolation Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48   ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 21:56   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-06 22:15     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 22:15       ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07  1:11       ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-07 13:57         ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07 13:57           ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07  9:26       ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-07  9:26         ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-07 14:06         ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07 14:06           ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07  9:49   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-07  9:49     ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08  7:39   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08  7:39     ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08 16:02     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08 16:02       ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 06/10] mm: remove unnecessary use-once cache bias from LRU balancing Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48   ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07  2:20   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-07 14:11     ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2016-06-07 14:11       ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08  8:03   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08  8:03     ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08 12:31   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08 12:31     ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48   ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:13   ` kbuild test robot
2016-06-07  2:34   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-07 14:12     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07 14:12       ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08  8:14   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08  8:14     ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08 16:06     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08 16:06       ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08 12:51   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08 12:51     ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08 16:16     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08 16:16       ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-09 12:18       ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 12:18         ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-09 13:33         ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-09 13:33           ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 08/10] mm: deactivations shouldn't bias the LRU balance Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48   ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08  8:15   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08  8:15     ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08 12:57   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08 12:57     ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 09/10] mm: only count actual rotations as LRU reclaim cost Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48   ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-08  8:19   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08  8:19     ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-08 13:18   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08 13:18     ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-06 19:48 ` [PATCH 10/10] mm: balance LRU lists based on relative thrashing Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:48   ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-06 19:22   ` kbuild test robot
2016-06-06 23:50   ` Tim Chen
2016-06-06 23:50     ` Tim Chen
2016-06-07 16:23     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07 16:23       ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-07 19:56       ` Tim Chen
2016-06-07 19:56         ` Tim Chen
2016-06-08 13:58   ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-08 13:58     ` Michal Hocko
2016-06-10  2:19   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-10  2:19     ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-13 15:52     ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-13 15:52       ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-15  2:23       ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-15  2:23         ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-16 15:12         ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-16 15:12           ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-17  7:49           ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-17  7:49             ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-17 17:01             ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-17 17:01               ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-20  7:42               ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-20  7:42                 ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-22 21:56                 ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-22 21:56                   ` Johannes Weiner
2016-06-24  6:22                   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-24  6:22                     ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-07  9:51 ` [PATCH 00/10] " Michal Hocko
2016-06-07  9:51   ` 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=20160607141124.GC9978@cmpxchg.org \
    --to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.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 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.