2011/6/23 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>: > On Thu 16-06-11 12:56:33, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> From fb8aaa2c5f7fd99dfcb5d2ecb3c1226a58caafea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:05:46 +0900 >> Subject: [PATCH 6/7] memcg: calc NUMA node's weight for scan. >> >> Now, by commit 889976, numa node scan of memcg is in round-robin. >> As commit log says, "a better algorithm is needed". >> >> for implementing some good scheduling, one of required things is >> defining importance of each node at LRU scanning. >> >> This patch defines each node's weight for scan as >> >> swappiness = (memcg's swappiness)? memcg's swappiness : 1 >> FILE = inactive_file + (inactive_file_is_low)? active_file : 0 >> ANON = inactive_anon + (inactive_anon_is_low)? active_anon : 0 >> >> weight = (FILE * (200-swappiness) + ANON * swappiness)/200. > > Shouldn't we consider the node size? Above one cheks FILE+ANON....it's size of node. > If we have a node which is almost full with file cache and then other > node wich is much bigger and it is mostly occupied by anonymous memory > than the other node might end up with higher weight. I used a porportional fair scheduling in the next patch and I expect I'll not see heavy starvation of node balancing. And if inactive_anon_is_low(), the weight of anon-only-node will jump up. But yes, other "weight" calculation is possible. The point of this patch series is introducing a scheduler which can handle "weight" of value. Thanks, -Kame -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>