On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 17:27 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
+ /*+ * If we don't have a lot of inactive or slab pages then there's no+ * point in trying to free them exclusively, do the normal scan stuff.+ */+ if (nr_inactive < total_high_wmark && nr_slab < total_high_wmark)+ sc->inactive_only = 0;
This part looks good. Below this point, there is obviously no
point in skipping the active list.
+ if (!global_reclaim(sc))+ sc->inactive_only = 0;
Why the different behaviour with and without cgroups?
Have you tested both of these?
+ /*+ * We still want to slightly prefer slab over inactive, so if inactive+ * is large enough just skip slab shrinking for now. If we aren't able+ * to reclaim enough exclusively from the inactive lists then we'll+ * reset this on the first loop and dip into slab.+ */+ if (nr_inactive > total_high_wmark && nr_inactive > nr_slab)+ skip_slab = true;
I worry that this may be a little too aggressive,
and result in the slab cache growing much larger
than it should be on some systems.
I wonder if it may make more sense to have the
aggressiveness of slab scanning depend on the
ratio of inactive to reclaimable slab pages, rather
than having a hard cut-off like this?
--All rights reversed
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
