On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 5:50 PM Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:25:31AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 06-08-19 17:15:05, Yafang Shao wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 5:05 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > > > > > As you said, the direct reclaim path set it to 1, but the > > > > > __node_reclaim() forgot to process may_shrink_slab. > > > > > > > > OK, I am blind obviously. Sorry about that. Anyway, why cannot we simply > > > > get back to the original behavior by setting may_shrink_slab in that > > > > path as well? > > > > > > You mean do it as the commit 0ff38490c836 did before ? > > > I haven't check in which commit the shrink_slab() is removed from > > > > What I've had in mind was essentially this: > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > index 7889f583ced9..8011288a80e2 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -4088,6 +4093,7 @@ static int __node_reclaim(struct pglist_data *pgdat, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned in > > .may_unmap = !!(node_reclaim_mode & RECLAIM_UNMAP), > > .may_swap = 1, > > .reclaim_idx = gfp_zone(gfp_mask), > > + .may_shrinkslab = 1; > > }; > > > > trace_mm_vmscan_node_reclaim_begin(pgdat->node_id, order, > > > > shrink_node path already does shrink slab when the flag allows that. In > > other words get us back to before 1c30844d2dfe because that has clearly > > changed the long term node reclaim behavior just recently. > > I'd be fine with this change. It was not intentional to significantly > change the behaviour of node reclaim in that patch. > But if we do it like this, there will be bug in the knob vm.min_slab_ratio. Right ? Thanks Yafang
