linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:41:10 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708141233370.30435@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1187119978.5337.1.camel@lappy>

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Ok but that could be addressed by making sure that a certain portion of 
> > memory is reserved for clean file backed pages.
> 
> Which gets us back to the initial problem of sizing this portion and
> ensuring it is big enough to service the need.

Clean file backed pages dominate memory on most boxes. They can be 
calculated by NR_FILE_PAGES - NR_FILE_DIRTY

On my 2G system that is 

Cached:        1731480 kB
Dirty:             424 kB

So for most load the patch as is will fix your issues. The problem arises 
if you have extreme loads that are making the majority of pages anonymous.

We could change min_free_kbytes to specify the number of free + clean 
pages required (if we can do atomic reclaim then we do not need it 
anymore). Then we can specify a large portion of memory for 
min_free_kbytes. 20%? That would give you 400M on my box which would 
certainly suffice.

If the amount of clean file backed pages falls below that limit then do 
the usual reclaim. If we write anonymous pages out to swap then they 
can also become clean and reclaimable.


--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2007-08-14 19:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-08-14 14:21 [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC) Christoph Lameter
2007-08-14 14:21 ` [RFC 1/3] Allow reclaim via __GFP_NOMEMALLOC reclaim Christoph Lameter
2007-08-14 14:21 ` [RFC 2/3] Use NOMEMALLOC reclaim to allow reclaim if PF_MEMALLOC is set Christoph Lameter
2007-08-14 14:21 ` [RFC 3/3] Test code for PF_MEMALLOC reclaim Christoph Lameter
2007-08-14 14:36 ` [RFC 0/3] Recursive reclaim (on __PF_MEMALLOC) Peter Zijlstra
2007-08-14 15:29   ` Christoph Lameter
2007-08-14 19:32     ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-08-14 19:41       ` Christoph Lameter [this message]
2007-08-15 12:22 ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-15 13:12   ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-08-15 14:15     ` Andi Kleen
2007-08-15 13:55       ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-08-15 14:34         ` Andi Kleen
2007-08-15 20:32         ` Christoph Lameter
2007-08-15 20:29     ` Christoph Lameter
2007-08-16  3:29     ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-16 20:27       ` Christoph Lameter
2007-08-20  3:51       ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-08-20 19:15         ` Christoph Lameter
2007-08-21  0:32           ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-21  0:28         ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-21 15:29           ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-08-23  3:02             ` Nick Piggin
2007-09-12 22:39           ` Christoph Lameter
2007-09-05  9:20 ` Daniel Phillips
2007-09-05 10:42   ` Christoph Lameter
2007-09-05 11:42     ` Nick Piggin
2007-09-05 12:14       ` Christoph Lameter
2007-09-05 12:19         ` Nick Piggin
2007-09-10 19:29           ` Christoph Lameter
2007-09-10 19:37             ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-09-10 19:41               ` Christoph Lameter
2007-09-10 19:55                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-09-10 20:17                   ` Christoph Lameter
2007-09-10 20:48                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-09-11  7:41             ` Nick Piggin
2007-09-12 10:52         ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-09-12 22:47           ` Christoph Lameter
2007-09-13  8:19             ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-09-13 18:32               ` Christoph Lameter
2007-09-13 19:24                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-09-05 16:16     ` Daniel Phillips
2007-09-08  5:12       ` Mike Snitzer
2007-09-18  0:28         ` Daniel Phillips
2007-09-18  3:27           ` Mike Snitzer
2007-09-18  9:30             ` Peter Zijlstra
     [not found]             ` <200709172211.26493.phillips@phunq.net>
2007-09-18  8:11               ` Wouter Verhelst
2007-09-18  9:58               ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-09-18 16:56                 ` Daniel Phillips
2007-09-18 19:16                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-09-18 18:40             ` Daniel Phillips
2007-09-18 20:13               ` Mike Snitzer
2007-09-10 19:25       ` Christoph Lameter
2007-09-10 19:55         ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-09-10 20:22           ` Christoph Lameter
2007-09-10 20:48             ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-26 17:44               ` Pavel Machek
2007-10-26 17:55                 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-10-27 22:58                   ` Daniel Phillips
2007-10-27 23:08                 ` Daniel Phillips

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=Pine.LNX.4.64.0708141233370.30435@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com \
    --to=clameter@sgi.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).