On Mon 13-05-19 21:36:59, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 2:45 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 13-05-19 14:09:59, Yang Shi wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I think we can just account 512 base pages for nr_scanned for
> > > isolate_lru_pages() to make the counters sane since PGSCAN_KSWAPD/DIRECT
> > > just use it.
> > >
> > > And, sc->nr_scanned should be accounted as 512 base pages too otherwise we
> > > may have nr_scanned < nr_to_reclaim all the time to result in false-negative
> > > for priority raise and something else wrong (e.g. wrong vmpressure).
> >
> > Be careful. nr_scanned is used as a pressure indicator to slab shrinking
> > AFAIR. Maybe this is ok but it really begs for much more explaining
>
> I don't know why my company mailbox didn't receive this email, so I
> replied with my personal email.
>
> It is not used to double slab pressure any more since commit
> 9092c71bb724 ("mm: use sc->priority for slab shrink targets"). It uses
> sc->priority to determine the pressure for slab shrinking now.
>
> So, I think we can just remove that "double slab pressure" code. It is
> not used actually and looks confusing now. Actually, the "double slab
> pressure" does something opposite. The extra inc to sc->nr_scanned
> just prevents from raising sc->priority.
I have to get in sync with the recent changes. I am aware there were
some patches floating around but I didn't get to review them. I was
trying to point out that nr_scanned used to have a side effect to be
careful about. If it doesn't have anymore then this is getting much more
easier of course. Please document everything in the changelog.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
