linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] vmscan: bail out of page reclaim after swap_cluster_max pages
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:22:06 +0900 (JST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081122191258.26B0.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081115235410.2d2c76de.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

Hi

I digged many git-log today.


> > > > Of course, one thing we could do is exempt kswapd from this check.
> > > > During light reclaim, kswapd does most of the eviction so scanning
> > > > should remain balanced.  Having one process fall down to a lower
> > > > priority level is also not a big problem.
> > > > 
> > > > As long as the direct reclaim processes do not also fall into the
> > > > same trap, the situation should be manageable.
> > > > 
> > > > Does that sound reasonable to you?
> > > 
> > > I'll need to find some time to go dig through the changelogs.  
> > 
> > as far as I tried, git database doesn't have that changelogs.
> > FWIW, I guess it is more old.
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/old-2.6-bkcvs.git
> goes back to 2.5.20 (iirc).

sorry, I was wrong.
following patch revertion was happend at 2006.

And, thank you andrew.
your comment is very nice.

So, desiable behavior is

	direct reclaim:
		should be bailed out if enough page reclaimed

	kswapd:
		don't bailed.


Actually, my prepared another bailed out patch has sc->may_cut_off member.
shrink_zone can do shorcut exiting if only sc->may_cut_off==1.


Rik, sorry, I nak current your patch. 
because it don't fix old akpm issue.

Very sorry. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 08:11:14 +0000 (-0800)
Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: balancing fix
X-Git-Tag: v2.6.16-rc1~936^2~246


Revert a patch which went into 2.6.8-rc1.  The changelog for that patch was:

  The shrink_zone() logic can, under some circumstances, cause far too many
  pages to be reclaimed.  Say, we're scanning at high priority and suddenly
  hit a large number of reclaimable pages on the LRU.

  Change things so we bale out when SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages have been
  reclaimed.

Problem is, this change caused significant imbalance in inter-zone scan
balancing by truncating scans of larger zones.

Suppose, for example, ZONE_HIGHMEM is 10x the size of ZONE_NORMAL.  The zone
balancing algorithm would require that if we're scanning 100 pages of
ZONE_HIGHMEM, we should scan 10 pages of ZONE_NORMAL.  But this logic will
cause the scanning of ZONE_HIGHMEM to bale out after only 32 pages are
reclaimed.  Thus effectively causing smaller zones to be scanned relatively
harder than large ones.

Now I need to remember what the workload was which caused me to write this
patch originally, then fix it up in a different way...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------




--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-11-22 10:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-11-13 22:12 Rik van Riel
2008-11-14  0:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-11-14  3:27 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-14 14:36   ` Rik van Riel
2008-11-14 17:18     ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-16  7:43       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-11-16  7:54         ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-16  7:56           ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-11-16  8:02             ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-22 10:22           ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2008-11-22 16:57             ` Rik van Riel
2008-11-24 19:12               ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-11-24 19:18                 ` Rik van Riel
2008-11-16  7:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-11-17  0:38   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2008-11-17  3:43     ` Balbir Singh
2008-11-19 16:54 ` Mel Gorman
2008-11-21 11:59   ` Petr Tesarik

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20081122191258.26B0.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox