>
> >
> > 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?
>
> I do not see any unnecessary kswapd run time, on the contrary it is
> fixing the kswapd continuous run issue.
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > + mark = sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING ?
> > + WMARK_PROMO : WMARK_HIGH;
> > + for (i = 0; i <= sc->reclaim_idx; i++) {
> > + struct zone *zone = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones + i;
> > + unsigned long size = wmark_pages(zone, mark);
> > +
> > + if (managed_zone(zone) &&
> > + !zone_watermark_ok(zone, sc->order, size, sc->reclaim_idx, 0))
> > + return false;
> > + }
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Charan
>
>
>
> --
> Jaroslav Pulchart
> Sr. Principal SW Engineer
> GoodData
Hello,
today we try to update servers to 6.6.9 which contains the mglru fixes
(from 6.6.8) and the server behaves much much worse.
I got multiple kswapd* load to ~100% imediatelly.
555 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 99.7 0.0 4:32.86
kswapd1
554 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 99.3 0.0 3:57.76
kswapd0
556 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 97.7 0.0 3:42.27
kswapd2
are the changes in upstream different compared to the initial patch
which I tested?
Best regards,
Jaroslav Pulchart
