On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:44:33PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > To some extent, it could be "addressed" by immediately reclaiming active > > pages moving to the inactive list at the cost of distorting page age for a > > workload that is genuinely close to OOM. That is similar to what zone-lru > > ended up doing -- fast reclaiming young pages from a zone. > > My expectation on my test case is that reclaimers should kick out > actively used page and make a room for 'fork' because parallel readers > would work even if reading pages are not cached. > > It is sensitive on reclaimers efficiency because parallel readers > read pages repeatedly and disturb reclaim. I thought that it is a > good test for node-lru which changes reclaimers efficiency for lower > zone. However, as you said, this efficiency comes from the cost > distorting page aging so now I'm not sure if it is a problem that we > need to consider. Let's skip it? > I think we should skip it for now. The alterations are too specific to a test case that is very close to being genuinely OOM. Adjusting timing for one OOM case may just lead to complains that OOM is detected too slowly in others. > Anyway, thanks for tracking down the problem. > My pleasure, thanks to both you and Minchan for persisting with this as we got some important fixes out of the discussion. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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>