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@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>