[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121213103420.GW1009@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:34:20 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/8] mm: vmscan: disregard swappiness shortly before
going OOM
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
> there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
> preference anymore. Just swap.
>
> Note that this change won't make too big of a difference for general
> reclaim: anonymous pages are already force-scanned when there is only
> very little file cache left, and there very likely isn't when the
> reclaimer enters this final cycle.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Ok, I see the motivation for your patch but is the block inside still
wrong for what you want? After your patch the block looks like this
if (sc->priority || noswap) {
scan >>= sc->priority;
if (!scan && force_scan)
scan = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
scan = div64_u64(scan * fraction[file], denominator);
}
if sc->priority == 0 and swappiness==0 then you enter this block but
fraction[0] for anonymous pages will also be 0 and because of the ordering
of statements there, scan will be
scan = scan * 0 / denominator
so you are still not reclaiming anonymous pages in the swappiness=0
case. What did I miss?
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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