From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B26C19F28 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 13:28:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2E3986B0071; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 09:28:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 293116B0072; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 09:28:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 181F38E0001; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 09:28:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027416B0071 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 09:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15131C0406 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 13:28:22 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79758360444.07.561E864 Received: from mail-qv1-f45.google.com (mail-qv1-f45.google.com [209.85.219.45]) by imf30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1348380125 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 13:28:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qv1-f45.google.com with SMTP id v2so12876676qvs.12 for ; Wed, 03 Aug 2022 06:28:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc; bh=l1+ReZVsy/Zcurp2LBAdNEnjUAZDeBVBQCSKwElpoHA=; b=IJR9r4ZEJjJUnPG965qhC0VKQvDBH0yM3l6doIUqvPl7zXv5UEqVv+VfILs7nN7ocu e5jDWTAu5km8uvKGd+leIaPbWV7M4LAJQqlucsBeFpOImJ9bZbbVZ4EGNYpaFTciIn6U WdYH8ozSGG7fv48a465UVpd8HfUjdtQoEkrUVIus8//VFQ/wlNO0T3h6XdxUyRgARejI aL7I8J1nPdHCgA640YB/LHb7Y7/uTsy29RDcg3dkeSR+kl2Z9I6OxBxVxLpol1eGGFYh xEgAqupGbBMk4RbLutYpM2G2jPyEredCLcnKN9O4Kse2i9ZabQd83xwFFbk6aKsqq4/k O8fw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=l1+ReZVsy/Zcurp2LBAdNEnjUAZDeBVBQCSKwElpoHA=; b=MWay2uZgJT2WHVMU5zUXSoOSU2nArF7UwSek03/eQwo+hVa06zHkmo/G+jUtrBFgVZ i5AmY+jfrhmm5x2j3F1pDuR3IutJtnCwBMvslQ+HNBKIEgvL3XJguzeyp2XrE93zCsMo RMq0h+kWQ7KBaeSpAko+gUeCDNZc1d8+XezCQG5z1c4GRbmr2f0dQ1l3YUOYy84jVehP kEJ17ATP5Fu05bSQCi1kp7Od3gKN+S7AEphBkh5RwKjRrZimgIK6s74U73F8TMc/PPOh gGEcfgn1OCMHs9nVMULPa/rWE39/EBJkEvGZ48pvB8JEolUWkYSdaUK78qe2L145oYS9 57aw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0WWx+nQvtx7MCMI1iXSi9ERLZrhxs83SAEOPMWckF4DlqITDdh 0dfNxZHnE8aebmOSsJcvvOKeUw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4DEAiwhB2lCAnu3LaEohloPb2G3Wpp2+C7glrjShJCrOyz8r1FN2sCA8pNkHOibWtuXx7KBg== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:8bd2:0:b0:474:7d1a:eb5b with SMTP id a18-20020a0c8bd2000000b004747d1aeb5bmr21858640qvc.18.1659533300175; Wed, 03 Aug 2022 06:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (2603-7000-0c01-2716-00ea-7f88-5fd9-01cd.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:7000:c01:2716:ea:7f88:5fd9:1cd]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d21-20020a05620a241500b006b249cc505fsm13434291qkn.82.2022.08.03.06.28.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 03 Aug 2022 06:28:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 09:28:19 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: Andrew Morton Cc: Mel Gorman , Hugh Dickins , Joonsoo Kim , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: fix extreme overreclaim and swap floods Message-ID: References: <20220802162811.39216-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20220802170619.250e1a0b475222a82e7077b3@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220802170619.250e1a0b475222a82e7077b3@linux-foundation.org> ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1659533302; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=l1+ReZVsy/Zcurp2LBAdNEnjUAZDeBVBQCSKwElpoHA=; b=CJWoHjlHwFAYt9s0o1PjvunOE1FF9vu+sGo1Qc9MxN14gi6/UpUH/E82EAJggegJ1xDJfU l6IHWS3SAIk2dwyKmjAxBK0p8KZGeRJc/rRhcCaf8Ip1Sk3PS5Ya8bu45MemoAB+p/q2OS Cj6ZZPZrvxGxEEa5/WftUhuX9S+ute4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf30.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=cmpxchg-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.s=20210112 header.b=IJR9r4ZE; spf=pass (imf30.hostedemail.com: domain of hannes@cmpxchg.org designates 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hannes@cmpxchg.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1659533302; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=WFp9gTkfHdUgfBVdTMeW4DoHBw6tHBc3QZDOLPVDWHQB0fUFgug8jEmaNABk2/fpOEpNx3 qp9OqHXEiXEj7w4e/dO/epOPjWYI0aZYlHFUpFI3UYzGgYiVg8Zni/YpLJWc+abIp55b2C qHADn0yCUk0u/kNy6PQ5UlyFM51Nz+I= X-Stat-Signature: 7dr89bqcdprpejh1yub5m7f4ibhkeanf X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1348380125 Authentication-Results: imf30.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=cmpxchg-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.s=20210112 header.b=IJR9r4ZE; spf=pass (imf30.hostedemail.com: domain of hannes@cmpxchg.org designates 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hannes@cmpxchg.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org X-HE-Tag: 1659533301-917367 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 05:06:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:28:11 -0400 Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > Change the code such that only one SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX-sized nudge toward > > the larger LRU lists is made before bailing out on a met reclaim goal. > > It seems rash to jam this into 5.20-rc1 at this stage. I'm thinking > 5.21-rc1 with a cc:stable? Yeah, 5.20-rc1 sounds fast. Let's wait for reviews first and see how much confidence we get on that change. I can't help but feel, reading logs and comments (commit 1a501907bbea8e6ebb0b16cf6db9e9cbf1d2c813), that my fix is how the code was intended to work from the start. 5.21 does sound a biiiit on the long side for fixing such extreme misbehavior, IMO, once it's proven to affect production workloads in the wild. I was hoping -rc2 or so...