From: Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel_team@skhynix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, vmscan: Don't turn on cache_trim_mode at the highest scan priority
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:24:34 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240216072434.GC32626@system.software.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOUHufYUC-oWePfqbbmm15Ue9QLfPg1G2nhXn6iSX_A460O6Uw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 12:55:17AM -0500, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 1:18 AM Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com> wrote:
> >
> > With cache_trim_mode on, reclaim logic doesn't bother reclaiming anon
> > pages. However, it should be more careful to turn on the mode because
> > it's going to prevent anon pages from reclaimed even if there are huge
> > ammount of anon pages that are very cold so should be reclaimed. Even
> > worse, that can lead kswapd_failures to be MAX_RECLAIM_RETRIES and stop
> > until direct reclaim eventually works to resume kswapd.
>
> Is a theory or something observed in the real world? If it's the
> former, would this change risk breaking existing use cases? It's the
I faced the latter case.
> latter, where are the performance numbers to show what it looks like
> before and after this patch?
Before:
Whenever the system meets the condition to turn on cache_trim_mode but
few cache pages to trim, kswapd fails without scanning anon pages that
are plenty and cold for sure and it retries 8 times and looks *stopped
for ever*.
After:
When the system meets the condition to turn on cache_trim_mode but few
cache pages to trim, kswapd finally works at the highest scan priority.
So kswap looks working well even in the same condition.
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index bba207f41b14..25b55fdc0d41 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -2268,7 +2268,8 @@ static void prepare_scan_control(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
> > * anonymous pages.
> > */
> > file = lruvec_page_state(target_lruvec, NR_INACTIVE_FILE);
> > - if (file >> sc->priority && !(sc->may_deactivate & DEACTIVATE_FILE))
> > + if (sc->priority != 1 && file >> sc->priority &
>
> Why 1?
It means the highest scan priority. The priority goes from DEF_PRIORITY
to 1.
Byungchul
> > + !(sc->may_deactivate & DEACTIVATE_FILE))
> > sc->cache_trim_mode = 1;
> > else
> > sc->cache_trim_mode = 0;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-16 7:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-08 6:18 [PATCH] mm, vmscan: Don't turn on cache_trim_mode at the highest scan priority Byungchul Park
2024-02-16 5:55 ` Yu Zhao
2024-02-16 7:24 ` Byungchul Park [this message]
2024-02-17 5:11 ` Yu Zhao
2024-02-21 22:30 ` Andrew Morton
2024-02-22 3:27 ` Byungchul Park
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=20240216072434.GC32626@system.software.com \
--to=byungchul@sk.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kernel_team@skhynix.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=yuzhao@google.com \
/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