On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon 06-02-17 17:54:10, Vinayak Menon wrote:
> [...]
>> diff --git a/mm/vmpressure.c b/mm/vmpressure.c
>> index 149fdf6..3281b34 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmpressure.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmpressure.c
>> @@ -112,8 +112,10 @@ static enum vmpressure_levels vmpressure_calc_level(unsigned long scanned,
>> unsigned long reclaimed)
>> {
>> unsigned long scale = scanned + reclaimed;
>> - unsigned long pressure;
>> + unsigned long pressure = 0;
>>
>> + if (reclaimed >= scanned)
>> + goto out;
>
> This deserves a comment IMHO. Besides that, why shouldn't we normalize
> the result already in vmpressure()? Please note that the tree == true
> path will aggregate both scanned and reclaimed and that already skews
> numbers.
Sure. Will add a comment.
IIUC, normalizing in vmpressure() means something like this which you
mentioned in one
of your previous emails right ?
+ if (reclaimed > scanned)
+ reclaimed = scanned;
Considering a scan window of 512 pages and without above piece of
code, if the first scanning is of a THP page
Scan=1,Reclaimed=512
If the next 511 scans results in 0 reclaimed pages
total_scan=512,Reclaimed=512 => vmpressure 0
Now with the above piece of code in place
Scan=1,Reclaimed=1, then
Scan=511, Reclaimed=0
total_scan=512,Reclaimed=1 => critical vmpressure
With the slab issue fixed separately, we need to fix only the
underflow right ? And if we do it in vmpressure_calc_level,
the check needs to done only once at the end of a scan window.
Thanks,
Vinayak
--
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>
