[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod5BmFVdosG=e2NcEzeuzv0W9WifSBmeD48xnn1k+SNRKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2021 22:06:27 -0800
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Alexey Avramov <hakavlad@...ox.lv>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Darrick Wong <djwong@...nel.org>, regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
Linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] mm: vmscan: Reduce throttling due to a failure to
make progress
On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 11:08 AM Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
>
[...]
> > I am in agreement with the motivation of the whole series. I am just
> > making sure that the motivation of VMSCAN_THROTTLE_NOPROGRESS based
> > throttle is more than just the congestion_wait of
> > mem_cgroup_force_empty_write.
> >
>
> The commit that primarily targets congestion_wait is 8cd7c588decf
> ("mm/vmscan: throttle reclaim until some writeback completes if
> congested"). The series recognises that there are other reasons why
> reclaim can fail to make progress that is not directly writeback related.
>
I agree with throttling for VMSCAN_THROTTLE_[WRITEBACK|ISOLATED]
reasons. Please explain why we should throttle for
VMSCAN_THROTTLE_NOPROGRESS? Also 69392a403f49 claims "Direct reclaim
primarily is throttled in the page allocator if it is failing to make
progress.", can you please explain how?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists