From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (mail-wm0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1D4828DF for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:08:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id n186so9762095wmn.1 for ; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:08:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k11si534863wjw.224.2016.03.03.14.08.11 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:08:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id l68so9826654wml.0 for ; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:08:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 00:08:03 +0200 From: Ebru Akagunduz Subject: Re: [RFC v5 0/3] mm: make swapin readahead to gain more thp performance Message-ID: <20160303220803.GA9898@debian> Reply-To: hughd@google.com References: <1442259105-4420-1-git-send-email-ebru.akagunduz@gmail.com> <20150914144106.ee205c3ae3f4ec0e5202c9fe@linux-foundation.org> <1456439750.15821.97.camel@redhat.com> <20160225233017.GA14587@debian> <1456498316.25322.35.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1456498316.25322.35.camel@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: hughd@google.com, riel@redhat.com Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, aarcange@redhat.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, gorcunov@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mgorman@suse.de, rientjes@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@suse.cz, boaz@plexistor.com, raindel@mellanox.com On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 09:51:56AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 22:17 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Ebru Akagunduz wrote: > > > in Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 05:35:50PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > > > Am I forgetting anything obvious? > > > > > > > > Is this too aggressive? > > > > > > > > Not aggressive enough? > > > > > > > > Could PGPGOUT + PGSWPOUT be a useful > > > > in-between between just PGSWPOUT or > > > > PGSTEAL_*? > > > > I've no idea offhand, would have to study what each of those > > actually means: I'm really not familiar with them myself. > > There are a few levels of page reclaim activity: > > PGSTEAL_* - any page was reclaimed, this could just > be file pages for streaming file IO,etc > > PGPGOUT - the VM wrote pages back to disk to reclaim > them, this could include file pages > > PGSWPOUT - the VM wrote something to swap to reclaim > memory > > I am not sure which level of aggressiveness khugepaged > should check against, but my gut instinct would probably > be the second or third. I tested with PGPGOUT, it does not help as I expect. As Rik's suggestion, PSWPOUT and ALLOCSTALL can be good. I started to prepare the patch last week. Just wanted to make you sure. Kind regards. -- 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: email@kvack.org