From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx197.postini.com [74.125.245.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 143516B0006 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:57:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:57:05 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm: vmscan: Limit the number of pages kswapd reclaims at each priority Message-ID: <20130321155705.GA27848@cmpxchg.org> References: <1363525456-10448-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1363525456-10448-2-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1363525456-10448-2-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Linux-MM , Jiri Slaby , Valdis Kletnieks , Rik van Riel , Zlatko Calusic , dormando , Satoru Moriya , Michal Hocko , LKML On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 01:04:07PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > The number of pages kswapd can reclaim is bound by the number of pages it > scans which is related to the size of the zone and the scanning priority. In > many cases the priority remains low because it's reset every SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX > reclaimed pages but in the event kswapd scans a large number of pages it > cannot reclaim, it will raise the priority and potentially discard a large > percentage of the zone as sc->nr_to_reclaim is ULONG_MAX. The user-visible > effect is a reclaim "spike" where a large percentage of memory is suddenly > freed. It would be bad enough if this was just unused memory but because > of how anon/file pages are balanced it is possible that applications get > pushed to swap unnecessarily. > > This patch limits the number of pages kswapd will reclaim to the high > watermark. Reclaim will will overshoot due to it not being a hard limit as will -> still? > shrink_lruvec() will ignore the sc.nr_to_reclaim at DEF_PRIORITY but it > prevents kswapd reclaiming the world at higher priorities. The number of > pages it reclaims is not adjusted for high-order allocations as kswapd will > reclaim excessively if it is to balance zones for high-order allocations. I don't really understand this last sentence. Is the excessive reclaim a result of the patch, a description of what's happening now...? > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Nice, thank you. Using the high watermark for larger zones is more reasonable than my hack that just always went with SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, what with inter-zone LRU cycle time balancing and all. Acked-by: Johannes Weiner -- 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: email@kvack.org