From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan,tmpfs: treat used once pages on tmpfs as used once
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 19:04:50 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100902185926.B64E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikKYFkvtAktnwzrmGPf7RNVdakWn0UbcJnc5w_a@mail.gmail.com>
> Hi KOSAKI,
>
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:37 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > When a page has PG_referenced, shrink_page_list() discard it only
> > if it is no dirty. This rule works completely fine if the backend
> > filesystem is regular one. PG_dirty is good signal that it was used
> > recently because flusher thread clean pages periodically. In addition,
> > page writeback is costly rather than simple page discard.
> >
> > However, When a page is on tmpfs, this heuristic don't works because
> > flusher thread don't writeback tmpfs pages. then, tmpfs pages always
> > rotate lru twice at least and it makes unnecessary lru churn. Merely
> > tmpfs streaming io shouldn't cause large anonymous page swap-out.
>
> It seem to make sense.
> But the why admin use tmps is to keep the contents in memory as far as
> possible than other's file system.
> But this patch has a possibility for tmpfs pages to reclaim early than
> old behavior.
>
> I admit this routine's goal is not to protect tmpfs page from too early reclaim.
> But at least, it would have affected until now.
> If it is, we might need other demotion prevent mechanism to protect tmpfs pages.
> Is split LRU enough? (I mean we consider tmpfs pages as anonymous
> which is hard to reclaim than file backed pages).
I think so. Split-LRU provide priotize anon rather than regular file. and old behavior is
obvious strange. streaming io tolerance is one of fundamental VM requirement.
So, I think current one is only historical reason.
>
> I don't mean to oppose this patch and I don't have a any number to
> insist on my opinion.
> Just what I want is that let's think about it more carefully and
> listen other's opinions. :)
>
> Thanks for good suggestion.
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
--
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>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-02 10:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-01 1:37 KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-09-01 9:30 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-09-01 13:51 ` Rik van Riel
2010-09-02 9:56 ` Minchan Kim
2010-09-02 10:04 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
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=20100902185926.B64E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--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