[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160212125609.7pa35n4wudjp7y36@alap3.anarazel.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:56:09 +0100
From: Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: Unhelpful caching decisions, possibly related to active/inactive
sizing
Hi,
On 2016-02-11 15:34:04 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index eb3dd37ccd7c..0a316c41bf80 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1928,13 +1928,14 @@ static inline bool inactive_anon_is_low(struct lruvec *lruvec)
> */
> static bool inactive_file_is_low(struct lruvec *lruvec)
> {
> + struct zone *zone = lruvec_zone(lruvec);
> unsigned long inactive;
> unsigned long active;
>
> inactive = get_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE);
> active = get_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE);
>
> - return active > inactive;
> + return inactive * zone->inactive_ratio < active;
> }
Oh, it looks to me like pat of inactive_file_is_low()'s description:
*
* When the system is doing streaming IO, memory pressure here
* ensures that active file pages get deactivated, until more
* than half of the file pages are on the inactive list.
*
Would need updating with this patch.
Regards,
Andres Freund
Powered by blists - more mailing lists