[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160706012554.GD12570@bbox>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:25:54 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/31] mm: vmscan: do not reclaim from kswapd if there is
any eligible zone
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 11:38:06AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 03:11:17PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > - if (i < 0)
> > > - goto out;
> > > + /*
> > > + * Only reclaim if there are no eligible zones. Check from
> > > + * high to low zone to avoid prematurely clearing pgdat
> > > + * congested state.
> >
> > I cannot understand "prematurely clearing pgdat congested state".
> > Could you add more words to clear it out?
> >
>
> It's surprisingly difficult to concisely explain. Is this any better?
>
> /*
> * Only reclaim if there are no eligible zones. Check from
> * high to low zone as allocations prefer higher zones.
> * Scanning from low to high zone would allow congestion to be
> * cleared during a very small window when a small low
> * zone was balanced even under extreme pressure when the
> * overall node may be congested.
> */
Surely, it's better. Thanks for the explaining.
I doubt we need such corner case logic at this moment and how it works well
without consistent scan from other callers of zone_balanced where scans
from low to high.
> > > + */
> > > + for (i = classzone_idx; i >= 0; i--) {
> > > + zone = pgdat->node_zones + i;
> > > + if (!populated_zone(zone))
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + if (zone_balanced(zone, sc.order, classzone_idx))
> >
> > If buffer_head is over limit, old logic force to reclaim highmem but
> > this zone_balanced logic will prevent it.
> >
>
> The old logic was always busted on 64-bit because is_highmem would always
> be 0. The original intent appears to be that buffer_heads_over_limit
> would release the buffers when pages went inactive. There are a number
Yes but the difference is in old, it was handled both direct and background
reclaim once buffers_heads is over the limit but your change slightly
changs it so kswapd couldn't reclaim high zone if any eligible zone
is balanced. I don't know how big difference it can make but we saw
highmem buffer_head problems several times, IIRC. So, I just wanted
to notice it to you. whether it's handled or not, it's up to you.
> of things we treated inconsistently that get fixed up in the series and
> buffer_heads_over_limit is one of them.
>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists