On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 1:47 AM Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi yu, > > On 12/2/2023 5:22 AM, Yu Zhao wrote: > > Charan, does the fix previously attached seem acceptable to you? Any > > additional feedback? Thanks. > > First, thanks for taking this patch to upstream. > > A comment in code snippet is checking just 'high wmark' pages might > succeed here but can fail in the immediate kswapd sleep, see > prepare_kswapd_sleep(). This can show up into the increased > KSWAPD_HIGH_WMARK_HIT_QUICKLY, thus unnecessary kswapd run time. > @Jaroslav: Have you observed something like above? > > So, in downstream, we have something like for zone_watermark_ok(): > unsigned long size = wmark_pages(zone, mark) + MIN_LRU_BATCH << 2; > > Hard to convince of this 'MIN_LRU_BATCH << 2' empirical value, may be we > should atleast use the 'MIN_LRU_BATCH' with the mentioned reasoning, is > what all I can say for this patch. Yeah, we can add MIN_LRU_BATCH on top of the high watermark.
