On Fri 14-12-12 10:43:55, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> >I can answer the later. Because memsw comes with its price and
> >swappiness is much cheaper. On the other hand it makes sense that
> >swappiness==0 doesn't swap at all. Or do you think we should get back to
> >_almost_ doesn't swap at all?
>
> swappiness==0 will swap in emergencies, specifically when we have
> almost no page cache left, we will still swap things out:
>
> if (global_reclaim(sc)) {
> free = zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
> if (unlikely(file + free <= high_wmark_pages(zone))) {
> /*
> * If we have very few page cache pages, force-scan
> * anon pages.
> */
> fraction[0] = 1;
> fraction[1] = 0;
> denominator = 1;
> goto out;
>
> This makes sense, because people who set swappiness==0 but
> do have swap space available would probably prefer some
> emergency swapping over an OOM kill.
Yes, but this is the global reclaim path. I was arguing about
swappiness==0 & memcg. As this patch doesn't make a big difference for
the global case (as both the changelog and you mentioned) then we should
focus on whether this is desirable change for the memcg path. I think it
makes sense to keep "no swapping at all for memcg semantic" as we have
it currently.
--
Michal Hocko
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>