[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190322224946.GA12527@chrisdown.name>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 22:49:46 +0000
From: Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>
To: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASED] mm, memcg: Make scan aggression always exclude
protection
Roman Gushchin writes:
>I've noticed that the old version is just wrong: if cgroup_size is way smaller
>than max(min, low), scan will be set to -lruvec_size.
>Given that it's unsigned long, we'll end up with scanning the whole list
>(due to clamp() below).
Are you certain? If so, I don't see what you mean. This is how the code looks
in Linus' tree after the fixups:
unsigned long cgroup_size = mem_cgroup_size(memcg);
unsigned long baseline = 0;
if (!sc->memcg_low_reclaim)
baseline = lruvec_size;
scan = lruvec_size * cgroup_size / protection - baseline;
This works correctly as far as I can tell:
low reclaim case:
In [1]: cgroup_size=50; lruvec_size=10; protection=2000; baseline=0; lruvec_size * cgroup_size // protection - baseline
Out[1]: 0
normal case:
In [2]: cgroup_size=3000; lruvec_size=10; protection=2000; baseline=lruvec_size; lruvec_size * cgroup_size // protection - baseline
Out[2]: 5
Powered by blists - more mailing lists