From: John Moser <john.r.moser@gmail.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: OOM at low page cache?
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:15:50 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54C8EF16.5080701@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150128062609.GA4706@blaptop>
On 01/28/2015 01:26 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:03:34PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> CC linux-mm in case somebody has a good answer but missed this in lkml traffic
>>
>> On 01/23/2015 11:18 PM, John Moser wrote:
>>> Why is there no tunable to OOM at low page cache?
> AFAIR, there were several trial although there wasn't acceptable
> at that time. One thing I can remember is min_filelist_kbytes.
> FYI, http://lwn.net/Articles/412313/
>
That looks more straight-forward than http://lwn.net/Articles/422291/
> I'm far away from reclaim code for a long time but when I read again,
> I found something strange.
>
> With having swap in get_scan_count, we keep a mount of file LRU + free
> as above than high wmark to prevent file LRU thrashing but we don't
> with no swap. Why?
>
That's ... strange. That means having a token 1MB swap file changes the
system's practical memory reclaim behavior dramatically?
--
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: John Moser <john.r.moser@gmail.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: OOM at low page cache?
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:15:50 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54C8EF16.5080701@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150128062609.GA4706@blaptop>
On 01/28/2015 01:26 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:03:34PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> CC linux-mm in case somebody has a good answer but missed this in lkml traffic
>>
>> On 01/23/2015 11:18 PM, John Moser wrote:
>>> Why is there no tunable to OOM at low page cache?
> AFAIR, there were several trial although there wasn't acceptable
> at that time. One thing I can remember is min_filelist_kbytes.
> FYI, http://lwn.net/Articles/412313/
>
That looks more straight-forward than http://lwn.net/Articles/422291/
> I'm far away from reclaim code for a long time but when I read again,
> I found something strange.
>
> With having swap in get_scan_count, we keep a mount of file LRU + free
> as above than high wmark to prevent file LRU thrashing but we don't
> with no swap. Why?
>
That's ... strange. That means having a token 1MB swap file changes the
system's practical memory reclaim behavior dramatically?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-28 14:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-23 22:18 OOM at low page cache? John Moser
2015-01-27 11:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-01-27 11:03 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-01-28 6:26 ` Minchan Kim
2015-01-28 6:26 ` Minchan Kim
2015-01-28 12:36 ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-28 12:36 ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-28 14:13 ` John Moser
2015-01-28 14:15 ` John Moser [this message]
2015-01-28 14:15 ` John Moser
2015-01-29 1:24 ` Minchan Kim
2015-01-29 1:24 ` Minchan Kim
2015-01-28 14:27 ` John Moser
2015-01-28 14:27 ` John Moser
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=54C8EF16.5080701@gmail.com \
--to=john.r.moser@gmail.com \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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.