[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <88f76721-3786-625f-b867-216f7904e116@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 11:37:15 -0400
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, aquini@...hat.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
llong@...hat.com, mhocko@...e.com, hakavlad@...ox.lv
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vm_swappiness=0 should still try to avoid swapping
anon memory
On 8/9/21 6:37 PM, Nico Pache wrote:
> Since commit 170b04b7ae49 ("mm/workingset: prepare the workingset detection
> infrastructure for anon LRU") and commit b91ac374346b ("mm: vmscan: enforce
> inactive:active ratio at the reclaim root") swappiness can start prematurely
> swapping anon memory. This is due to the assumption that refaulting anon should
> always allow the shrinker to target anon memory. Add a check for swappiness
> being >0 before indiscriminately targeting Anon. Before these commits
> when a user had swappiness=0 anon memory would rarely get swapped; this
> behavior has remained constant sense RHEL5. This commit keeps that behavior
Typo: "sense" -> "since"
> intact and prevents the new workingset refaulting from challenging the anon
> memory when swappiness=0.
>
> Anon can still be swapped to prevent OOM. This does not completely disable
> swapping, but rather tames the refaulting aspect of the code that allows for
> the deactivating of anon memory.
>
> We have two customer workloads that discovered this issue:
> 1) A VM claiming 95% of the hosts memory followed by file reads (never dirty)
> which begins to challenge the anon. Refaulting the anon working set will then
> cause the indiscriminant swapping of the anon.
>
> 2) A VM running a in-memory DB is being populated from file reads.
> Swappiness is set to 0 or 1 to defer write I/O as much as possible. Once
> the customer experienced low memory, swapping anon starts, with
> little-to-no PageCache being swapped.
Pagecache are not swapped. It is discarded under memory pressure and
written back if dirty.
Other than that, the patch looks good to me.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists