[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160216083518.GZ19486@dastard>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:35:18 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Nag Avadhanam <nag@...co.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"Daniel Walker (danielwa)" <danielwa@...co.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Khalid Mughal (khalidm)" <khalidm@...co.com>,
"xe-kernel@...ernal.cisco.com" <xe-kernel@...ernal.cisco.com>,
"dave.hansen@...el.com" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: fs: drop_caches: add dds drop_caches_count
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:14:13PM -0800, Nag Avadhanam wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 02:58:04AM +0000, Nag Avadhanam (nag) wrote:
> >>Its the calculation of the # of bytes of non-reclaimable file system cache
> >>pages that has been troubling us. We do not want to count inactive file
> >>pages (of programs/binaries) that were once mapped by any process in the
> >>system as reclaimable because that might lead to thrashing under memory
> >>pressure (we want to alert admins before system starts dropping text
> >>pages).
> >
> >The code presented does not match your requirements. It only counts
> >pages that are currently mapped into ptes. hence it will tell you
> >that once-used and now unmapped binary pages are reclaimable, and
> >drop caches will reclaim them. hence they'll need to be fetched from
> >disk again if they are faulted in again after a drop_caches run.
>
> Will the inactive binary pages be automatically unmapped even if the process
> into whose address space they are mapped is still around? I thought they
> are left mapped until such time there is memory pressure.
Right, page reclaim via memory pressure can unmap mapped pages in
order to reclaim them. Drop caches will skip them.
> We only care for binary pages (active and inactive) mapped into the
> address spaces of live processes. Its okay to aggressively reclaim
> inactive
> pages once mapped into processes that are no longer around.
Ok, if you're only concerned about live processes then drop caches
should behave as you want.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists