[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111216151703.GA12817@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:17:31 +0100
From: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andy Isaacson <adi@...apodia.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Nai Xia <nai.xia@...il.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] mm: Isolate pages for immediate reclaim on their
own LRU
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 03:41:33PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> It was observed that scan rates from direct reclaim during tests
> writing to both fast and slow storage were extraordinarily high. The
> problem was that while pages were being marked for immediate reclaim
> when writeback completed, the same pages were being encountered over
> and over again during LRU scanning.
>
> This patch isolates file-backed pages that are to be reclaimed when
> clean on their own LRU list.
Excuse me if I sound like a broken record, but have those observations
of high scan rates persisted with the per-zone dirty limits patchset?
In my tests with pzd, the scan rates went down considerably together
with the immediate reclaim / vmscan writes.
Our dirty limits are pretty low - if reclaim keeps shuffling through
dirty pages, where are the 80% reclaimable pages?! To me, this sounds
like the unfair distribution of dirty pages among zones again. Is
there are a different explanation that I missed?
PS: It also seems a bit out of place in this series...?
--
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