[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOUHufbekcu09DyEZAkJNRq_1qKaf_xibXQNeAVK=rsGBn9Z4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 02:36:13 -0700
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michael Larabel <Michael@...haellarabel.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Kernel Page Reclaim v2 <page-reclaim@...gle.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
Jan Alexander Steffens <heftig@...hlinux.org>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
Steven Barrett <steven@...uorix.net>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Daniel Byrne <djbyrne@....edu>,
Donald Carr <d@...os-reins.com>,
Holger Hoffstätte <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>,
Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel@...dex.ru>,
Shuang Zhai <szhai2@...rochester.edu>,
Sofia Trinh <sofia.trinh@....works>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/12] mm: multigenerational LRU: minimal implementation
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 1:28 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Yu,
>
> Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com> writes:
>
> > To avoid confusions, the terms "promotion" and "demotion" will be
> > applied to the multigenerational LRU, as a new convention; the terms
> > "activation" and "deactivation" will be applied to the active/inactive
> > LRU, as usual.
>
> In the memory tiering related commits and patchset, for example as follows,
>
> commit 668e4147d8850df32ca41e28f52c146025ca45c6
> Author: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Date: Thu Sep 2 14:59:19 2021 -0700
>
> mm/vmscan: add page demotion counter
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220221084529.1052339-1-ying.huang@intel.com/
>
> "demote" and "promote" is used for migrating pages between different
> types of memory. Is it better for us to avoid overloading these words
> too much to avoid the possible confusion?
Given that LRU and migration are usually different contexts, I think
we'd be fine, unless we want a third pair of terms.
> > +static int get_swappiness(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> > +{
> > + return mem_cgroup_get_nr_swap_pages(memcg) >= MIN_LRU_BATCH ?
> > + mem_cgroup_swappiness(memcg) : 0;
> > +}
>
> After we introduced demotion support in Linux kernel. The anonymous
> pages in the fast memory node could be demoted to the slow memory node
> via the page reclaiming mechanism as in the following commit. Can you
> consider that too?
Sure. How do I check whether there is still space on the slow node?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists