From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:33:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170116193317.20390-2-mhocko@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170116193317.20390-1-mhocko@kernel.org>
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
get_scan_count considers the whole node LRU size when
- doing SCAN_FILE due to many page cache inactive pages
- calculating the number of pages to scan
in both cases this might lead to unexpected behavior especially on 32b
systems where we can expect lowmem memory pressure very often.
A large highmem zone can easily distort SCAN_FILE heuristic because
there might be only few file pages from the eligible zones on the node
lru and we would still enforce file lru scanning which can lead to
trashing while we could still scan anonymous pages.
The later use of lruvec_lru_size can be problematic as well. Especially
when there are not many pages from the eligible zones. We would have to
skip over many pages to find anything to reclaim but shrink_node_memcg
would only reduce the remaining number to scan by SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX
at maximum. Therefore we can end up going over a large LRU many times
without actually having chance to reclaim much if anything at all. The
closer we are out of memory on lowmem zone the worse the problem will
be.
Fix this by filtering out all the ineligible zones when calculating the
lru size for both paths and consider only sc->reclaim_idx zones.
Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 1cb0ebdef305..a88e222784ea 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -2234,7 +2234,7 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
* system is under heavy pressure.
*/
if (!inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, true, sc, false) &&
- lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MAX_NR_ZONES) >> sc->priority) {
+ lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, sc->reclaim_idx) >> sc->priority) {
scan_balance = SCAN_FILE;
goto out;
}
@@ -2301,7 +2301,7 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
unsigned long size;
unsigned long scan;
- size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, MAX_NR_ZONES);
+ size = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, lru, sc->reclaim_idx);
scan = size >> sc->priority;
if (!scan && pass && force_scan)
--
2.11.0
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-16 19:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-10 12:55 [RFC PATCH 0/2] follow up nodereclaim for 32b fix Michal Hocko
2017-01-10 12:55 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count Michal Hocko
2017-01-11 6:18 ` Hillf Danton
2017-01-13 9:18 ` Michal Hocko
2017-01-17 6:47 ` Minchan Kim
2017-01-14 16:12 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-01-16 9:29 ` Michal Hocko
2017-01-16 16:01 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-01-16 19:33 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm, vmscan: cleanup lru size claculations Michal Hocko
2017-01-16 19:33 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-01-17 3:42 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count Hillf Danton
2017-01-16 19:33 ` [PATCH 3/3] Reverted "mm: bail out in shrink_inactive_list()" Michal Hocko
2017-01-17 3:58 ` Hillf Danton
2017-01-17 6:58 ` Minchan Kim
2017-01-17 3:40 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm, vmscan: cleanup lru size claculations Hillf Danton
2017-01-17 6:58 ` Minchan Kim
2017-01-10 12:55 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, vmscan: cleanup inactive_list_is_low Michal Hocko
2017-01-10 23:56 ` Minchan Kim
2017-01-11 6:22 ` Hillf Danton
2017-01-14 16:16 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-01-17 10:36 [PATCH 0/3] follow up nodereclaim for 32b fix Michal Hocko
2017-01-17 10:37 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm, vmscan: consider eligible zones in get_scan_count Michal Hocko
2017-01-18 16:46 ` Johannes Weiner
2017-02-06 8:10 ` Michal Hocko
2017-02-06 23:40 ` Andrew Morton
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=20170116193317.20390-2-mhocko@kernel.org \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
/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