linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	Iram Shahzad <iram.shahzad@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: compaction: trying to understand the code
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:22:16 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimVmoomDjGMCfKvNrS+v-mMnfeq6JDZzx7fjZi+@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100820093558.GG19797@csn.ul.ie>

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 01:34:47PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>> You do run lots of tasks: kernel_stack=1880kB.
>>
>> And you have lots of free memory, page reclaim has never run, so
>> inactive_anon=0. This is where compaction is different from vmscan.
>> In vmscan, inactive_anon is reasonably large, and will only be
>> compared directly with isolated_anon.
>>
>
> True, the key observation here was that compaction is being run via the
> proc trigger. Normally it would be run as part of the direct reclaim
> path when kswapd would already be awake. too_many_isolated() needs to be
> different for compaction to take the whole system into account. What
> would be the best alternative? Here is one possibility. A reasonable
> alternative would be that when inactive < active that isolated can't be
> more than num_online_cpus() * 2 (i.e. one compactor per online cpu).
>
> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
> index 94cce51..1e000b7 100644
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> @@ -215,14 +215,16 @@ static void acct_isolated(struct zone *zone, struct compact_control *cc)
>  static bool too_many_isolated(struct zone *zone)
>  {
>
> -       unsigned long inactive, isolated;
> +       unsigned long active, inactive, isolated;
>
> +       active = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE_FILE) +
> +                                       zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_ANON);
>        inactive = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
>                                        zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_ANON);
>        isolated = zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_FILE) +
>                                        zone_page_state(zone, NR_ISOLATED_ANON);
>
> -       return isolated > inactive;
> +       return (inactive > active) ? isolated > inactive : false;
>  }
>
>  /*
>

1. active : 1000 inactive : 1000
2. parallel reclaiming -> active : 1000 inactive : 500 isolated : 500
3. too_many_isolated return false.

But in this  case, there are already many isolated pages. So it should
return true.

How about this?
too_many_isolated()
{
      return (isolated > nr_zones * nr_nodes * nr_online_cpu *
SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX);
}
-- 
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-08-20 10:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-08-17 11:08 Iram Shahzad
2010-08-17 11:10 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-18  8:19   ` Iram Shahzad
2010-08-18 15:41     ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-19  7:09       ` Iram Shahzad
2010-08-19  7:45         ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-19  7:46         ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-19  8:08           ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-19  8:15             ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-19  8:29               ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-20  5:45           ` Iram Shahzad
2010-08-20  5:50             ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-20  6:13               ` Iram Shahzad
2010-08-19 16:00         ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-20  5:31           ` Iram Shahzad
2010-08-20  5:34             ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-20  9:35               ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-20 10:22                 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2010-08-22 15:31                   ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-22 23:23                     ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-23  1:58                       ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-23  3:03                         ` Iram Shahzad
2010-08-23  9:10                           ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-26  8:51                             ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-23  7:18                       ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-23 17:14                       ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-24  0:27                         ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-24  5:07                           ` Iram Shahzad
2010-08-24  6:52                             ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-26  8:05                               ` Iram Shahzad
2010-08-23  7:16                     ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-23  9:07                       ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-20 10:23                 ` Wu Fengguang

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=AANLkTimVmoomDjGMCfKvNrS+v-mMnfeq6JDZzx7fjZi+@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=iram.shahzad@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    /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