[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54C8EF16.5080701@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:15:50 -0500
From: John Moser <john.r.moser@...il.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: OOM at low page cache?
On 01/28/2015 01:26 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:03:34PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> CC linux-mm in case somebody has a good answer but missed this in lkml traffic
>>
>> On 01/23/2015 11:18 PM, John Moser wrote:
>>> Why is there no tunable to OOM at low page cache?
> AFAIR, there were several trial although there wasn't acceptable
> at that time. One thing I can remember is min_filelist_kbytes.
> FYI, http://lwn.net/Articles/412313/
>
That looks more straight-forward than http://lwn.net/Articles/422291/
> I'm far away from reclaim code for a long time but when I read again,
> I found something strange.
>
> With having swap in get_scan_count, we keep a mount of file LRU + free
> as above than high wmark to prevent file LRU thrashing but we don't
> with no swap. Why?
>
That's ... strange. That means having a token 1MB swap file changes the
system's practical memory reclaim behavior dramatically?
--
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