On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:29:41 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > On Fri, 06 Sep 2024, Hillf Danton wrote:\n > >The proactive reclaim on the cmdline looks like waste of cpu cycles before > >the cases where kswapd fails to work are spotted. It is not correct to add > >it because you can type the code. > > Are you against proactive reclaim altogether (ie: memcg) or this patch in > particular, which extends its availability? > The against makes no sense to me because I know your patch is never able to escape standing ovation. > The benefits of proactive reclaim are well documented, and the community has > been overall favorable towards it. This operation is not meant to be generally > used, but there are real latency benefits to be had which are completely > unrelated to watermarks. Similarly, we have 'compact' as an alternative to > kcompactd (which was once upon a time part of kswapd). > Because kswapd is responsible for watermark instead of high order pages, compact does not justify proactive reclaim from the begining.
