From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] plans for future swap changes
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 01:40:24 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170104064024.GA3676@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161228145732.GE11470@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 03:57:32PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> This is something I would be interested to discuss even though I am not
> working on it directly. Sorry if I hijacked the topic from those who
> planned to post them.
>
> It seems that the time to reconsider our approach to the swap storage is
> come already and there are multiple areas to discuss. I would be
> interested at least in the following
> 1) anon/file balancing. Johannes has posted some work already and I am
> really interested in the future plans for it.
They needed some surgery to work on top of the node-LRU rewrite. I've
restored performance on the benchmarks I was using and will post them
after some more cleaning up and writing changelogs for the new pieces.
> 2) swap trashing detection is something that we are lacking for a long
> time and it would be great if we could do something to help
> situations when the machine is effectively out of memory but still
> hopelessly trying to swap in and out few pages while the machine is
> basically unusable. I hope that 1) will give us some bases but I am
> not sure how much we will need on top.
Yes, this keeps biting us quite frequently. Not with swap so much as
page cache, but it's the same problem: while we know all the thrashing
*events*, we don't know how much they truly cost us. I've started
drafting a thrashing quantification patch based on feedback from the
Kernel Summit, attaching it below. It's unbelievably crude and needs
more thought on sampling/decaying, as well as on filtering out swapins
that happen after pressure has otherwise subsided. But it does give me
a reasonable-looking thrashing ratio under memory pressure.
> 3) optimizations for the swap out paths - Tim Chen and other guys from
> Intel are already working on this. I didn't get time to review this
> closely - mostly because I am not closely familiar with the swapout
> code and it takes quite some time to get into all subtle details.
> I mainly interested in what are the plans in this area and how they
> should be coordinated with other swap related changes
> 4) Do we want the native THP swap in/out support?
Shaohua had some opinions on this, he might be interested in joining
this discussion. CCing him.
---
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-04 6:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-28 14:57 Michal Hocko
2017-01-04 6:40 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2017-01-04 17:16 ` Tim Chen
2017-01-04 18:13 ` Shaohua Li
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=20170104064024.GA3676@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=shli@fb.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.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