[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YZ6wg9A5p5WUy7+k@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 16:37:07 -0500
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, mcgrof@...nel.org,
keescook@...omium.org, yzaikin@...gle.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, corbet@....net, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
xi.fengfei@....com, rppt@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sysctl: change watermark_scale_factor max limit to
30%
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:36:04AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> For embedded systems with low total memory, having to run applications
> with relatively large memory requirements, 10% max limitation for
> watermark_scale_factor poses an issue of triggering direct reclaim
> every time such application is started. This results in slow application
> startup times and bad end-user experience.
> By increasing watermark_scale_factor max limit we allow vendors more
> flexibility to choose the right level of kswapd aggressiveness for
> their device and workload requirements.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
No objection from me as this limit was always totally arbitrary. But I
have to say I'm a bit surprised: The current maximum setting will wake
kswapd when free memory drops below 10% and have it reclaim until
20%. This seems like quite a lot? Are there applications that really
want kswapd to wake at 30% and target 60% of memory free?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists