On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 05:28:44PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:53:36PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 12/12/2012 04:43 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > >dc0422c "mm: vmscan: only evict file pages when we have plenty" makes
You are using some internal tree for that commit. Now that it's upstream
it is commit e9868505987a03a26a3979f27b82911ccc003752.
> > >a point of not going for anonymous memory while there is still enough
> > >inactive cache around.
> > >
> > >The check was added only for global reclaim, but it is just as useful
> > >for memory cgroup reclaim.
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >---
> > > mm/vmscan.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > >index 157bb11..3874dcb 100644
> > >--- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > >+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > >@@ -1671,6 +1671,16 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc,
> > > denominator = 1;
> > > goto out;
> > > }
> > >+ /*
> > >+ * There is enough inactive page cache, do not reclaim
> > >+ * anything from the anonymous working set right now.
> > >+ */
> > >+ if (!inactive_file_is_low(lruvec)) {
> > >+ fraction[0] = 0;
> > >+ fraction[1] = 1;
> > >+ denominator = 1;
> > >+ goto out;
> > >+ }
> > >
> > > anon = get_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON) +
> > > get_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON);
> > >@@ -1688,15 +1698,6 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc,
> > > fraction[1] = 0;
> > > denominator = 1;
> > > goto out;
> > >- } else if (!inactive_file_is_low_global(zone)) {
> > >- /*
> > >- * There is enough inactive page cache, do not
> > >- * reclaim anything from the working set right now.
> > >- */
> > >- fraction[0] = 0;
> > >- fraction[1] = 1;
> > >- denominator = 1;
> > >- goto out;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I believe the if() block should be moved to AFTER
> > the check where we make sure we actually have enough
> > file pages.
>
> You are absolutely right, this makes more sense. Although I'd figure
> the impact would be small because if there actually is that little
> file cache, it won't be there for long with force-file scanning... :-)
>
Does it actually make sense? Lets take the global reclaim case.
low_file == if (unlikely(file + free <= high_wmark_pages(zone)))
inactive_is_high == if (!inactive_file_is_low_global(zone))
Current
low_file inactive_is_high force reclaim anon
low_file !inactive_is_high force reclaim anon
!low_file inactive_is_high force reclaim file
!low_file !inactive_is_high normal split
Your patch
low_file inactive_is_high force reclaim anon
low_file !inactive_is_high force reclaim anon
!low_file inactive_is_high force reclaim file
!low_file !inactive_is_high normal split
However, if you move the inactive_file_is_low check down you get
Moving the check
low_file inactive_is_high force reclaim file
low_file !inactive_is_high force reclaim anon
!low_file inactive_is_high force reclaim file
!low_file !inactive_is_high normal split
There is a small but important change in results. I easily could have made
a mistake so double check.
I'm not being super thorough because I'm not quite sure this is the right
patch if the motivation is for memcg to use the same logic. Instead of
moving this if, why do you not estimate "free" for the memcg based on the
hard limit and current usage?
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>