Re: [PATCH v2] vmpressure: consider "scanned < reclaimed" case when calculating a pressure level.

[Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org>]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 06:11:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > If we send critical but there isn't big memory pressure, maybe
> > critical handler would kill some process and the result is that
> > killing another process unnecessary. That's really thing we should
> > avoid.

Yes, so that is why I actually want to ack the patch... It might be not an
ideal solution, but to me it seems like a good for the time being.

(Actually I should have done that check myself.)

> > > The THP case made sense because nr_scanned is in LRU elements units
> > > while nr_reclaimed is in page units which are different so nr_reclaim
> > > might be higher than nr_scanned (so nr_taken would be more approapriate
> > > for vmpressure).
> > 
> > In case of THP, 512 page is equal to vmpressure_win so if we change
> > nr_scanned with nr_taken, it could easily make vmpressure notifier
> 
> Wasn't 512 selected for vmpressure_win exactly for this reason?

Nope. The current vmpressure_win was selected kind of arbitrary, i.e. it
worked good for most of my test cases.

> Shouldn't we rather fix that assumption?

If there is any assumption (which I had not in my mind :), then we
definitely should do that, since vmpressure_win is going to be
machine-size dependant.

Thanks,

Anton

--
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>