From: Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@ah.jp.nec.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Keiichi KII <kii@linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [patch] memory reclaim more efficiently
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:54:58 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <485F2CA2.8060106@ah.jp.nec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080623102854.37BE.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Hi nagano-san,
> >
>> >> In shrink_zone(), system can not return to user mode before it finishes to
>> >> search LRU list. IMHO, it is very wasteful, since the user processes stay
>> >> unnecessarily long time in shrink_zone() loop and application response time
>> >> becomes relatively bad. This patch changes shrink_zone() that it finishes
memory
>> >> reclaim when it reclaims enough memory.
>> >>
>> >> the conditions to end searching:
>> >>
>> >> 1. order of request page is 0
>> >> 2. process is not kswapd.
>> >> 3. satisfy the condition to return try_to_free_pages()
>> >> # nr_reclaim > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX
Hi Kosaki-san,
> > I have 3 question.
> >
> > 1. Do you have any performance number?
I tested some, but I don't collect data. :-(
I will test again and post results.
> > 2. I think this patch advocate many try_to_free_pages() called is better than
> > one try_to_free_page waste long time. right?
> > and, why do you think so?
I think user process is stopped long time on memory reclaim is not good.
It is enough for user process to reclaim memory is needed. We have kswapd memory
reclaim daemon. I think memory reclaim is kswapd's job.
> > 3. if this patch improve perfomance, I guess DEF_PRIORITY is
> > too small on your machine.
> > if DEF_PRIORITY is proportional to system memory, do your problem are solved?
Your idea is so nice. :-)
IMHO, it is not perfect if reclaimable memory is not on front.
Thanks,
Takenori
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Takenori Nagano <t-nagano@ah.jp.nec.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Keiichi KII <kii@linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [patch] memory reclaim more efficiently
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:54:58 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <485F2CA2.8060106@ah.jp.nec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080623102854.37BE.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Hi nagano-san,
> >
>> >> In shrink_zone(), system can not return to user mode before it finishes to
>> >> search LRU list. IMHO, it is very wasteful, since the user processes stay
>> >> unnecessarily long time in shrink_zone() loop and application response time
>> >> becomes relatively bad. This patch changes shrink_zone() that it finishes
memory
>> >> reclaim when it reclaims enough memory.
>> >>
>> >> the conditions to end searching:
>> >>
>> >> 1. order of request page is 0
>> >> 2. process is not kswapd.
>> >> 3. satisfy the condition to return try_to_free_pages()
>> >> # nr_reclaim > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX
Hi Kosaki-san,
> > I have 3 question.
> >
> > 1. Do you have any performance number?
I tested some, but I don't collect data. :-(
I will test again and post results.
> > 2. I think this patch advocate many try_to_free_pages() called is better than
> > one try_to_free_page waste long time. right?
> > and, why do you think so?
I think user process is stopped long time on memory reclaim is not good.
It is enough for user process to reclaim memory is needed. We have kswapd memory
reclaim daemon. I think memory reclaim is kswapd's job.
> > 3. if this patch improve perfomance, I guess DEF_PRIORITY is
> > too small on your machine.
> > if DEF_PRIORITY is proportional to system memory, do your problem are solved?
Your idea is so nice. :-)
IMHO, it is not perfect if reclaimable memory is not on front.
Thanks,
Takenori
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-23 4:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-23 0:55 [patch] memory reclaim more efficiently Takenori Nagano
2008-06-23 0:55 ` Takenori Nagano
2008-06-23 1:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-06-23 1:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-06-23 4:54 ` Takenori Nagano [this message]
2008-06-23 4:54 ` Takenori Nagano
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=485F2CA2.8060106@ah.jp.nec.com \
--to=t-nagano@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=kii@linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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.