From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yk0-f173.google.com (mail-yk0-f173.google.com [209.85.160.173]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1DD6B0038 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:15:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-yk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 142so8985725ykq.4 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x22e.google.com (mail-qg0-x22e.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22e]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u4si6097774qac.80.2015.01.28.06.15.51 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id i50so16730268qgf.5 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 06:15:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54C8EF16.5080701@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:15:50 -0500 From: John Moser MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: OOM at low page cache? References: <54C2C89C.8080002@gmail.com> <54C77086.7090505@suse.cz> <20150128062609.GA4706@blaptop> In-Reply-To: <20150128062609.GA4706@blaptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Minchan Kim , Vlastimil Babka Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Rik van Riel , Johannes Weiner , KOSAKI Motohiro , Kamezawa Hiroyuki , Christoph Lameter 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: email@kvack.org