On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 07:10:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 11:01:54AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:22:09AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 02:04:06PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > 2. a list of files that contain shadow entries is maintained. If the
> > > > global number of shadows exceeds a certain threshold, a shrinker is
> > > > activated that reclaims old entries from the mappings. This is
> > > > heavy-handed but it should not be a common case and is only there
> > > > to protect from accidentally/maliciously induced OOM kills.
> > >
> > > Grrr.. another global files list. We've been trying rather hard to get
> > > rid of the first one :/
> > >
> > > I see why you want it but ugh.
> >
> > I'll try to make it per-SB like the inode list. It probably won't be
> > per-SB shrinkers because of the global nature of the shadow limit, but
> > at least per-SB inode lists should be doable.
>
> per have per-cpu-per-sb lists, see file_sb_list_{add,del} and
> do_file_list_for_each_entry()
Ok, I'll give it a look. Thanks.
> > > I have similar worries for your global time counter, large machines
> > > might thrash on that one cacheline.
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > So I'm trying the following idea: instead of the global time counter,
> > have per-zone time counters and store the zone along with those local
> > timestamps in the shadow entries (nid | zid | time). On refault, we
> > can calculate the zone-local distance first and then use the inverse
> > of the zone's eviction proportion to scale it to a global distance.
>
> The thinking is since that's the same granularity as the zone lock,
> you're likely to at least trash the zone lock in equal measure?
Yeah, and prevent the cross-node bouncing.
--
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>