[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f11576a0908210357j72a0c5b4v16997dff137bd738@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:57:24 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Dike, Jeffrey G" <jeffrey.g.dike@...el.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"lizf@...fujitsu.com" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
"menage@...gle.com" <menage@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 changelog updated] mm: do batched scans for mem_cgroup
2009/8/21 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>:
> For mem_cgroup, shrink_zone() may call shrink_list() with nr_to_scan=1,
> in which case shrink_list() _still_ calls isolate_pages() with the much
> larger SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX. It effectively scales up the inactive list
> scan rate by up to 32 times.
>
> For example, with 16k inactive pages and DEF_PRIORITY=12, (16k >> 12)=4.
> So when shrink_zone() expects to scan 4 pages in the active/inactive
> list, the active list will be scanned 4 pages, while the inactive list
> will be (over) scanned SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX=32 pages in effect. And that
> could break the balance between the two lists.
>
> It can further impact the scan of anon active list, due to the anon
> active/inactive ratio rebalance logic in balance_pgdat()/shrink_zone():
>
> inactive anon list over scanned => inactive_anon_is_low() == TRUE
> => shrink_active_list()
> => active anon list over scanned
>
> So the end result may be
>
> - anon inactive => over scanned
> - anon active => over scanned (maybe not as much)
> - file inactive => over scanned
> - file active => under scanned (relatively)
>
> The accesses to nr_saved_scan are not lock protected and so not 100%
> accurate, however we can tolerate small errors and the resulted small
> imbalanced scan rates between zones.
>
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists