Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] low order lumpy reclaim also should use PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC. | | Date | Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:20:47 +0900 (JST) |
| |
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 02:22:27PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > Subject: [PATCH] low order lumpy reclaim also should use PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC. > > > > commit 33c120ed2843090e2bd316de1588b8bf8b96cbde (more aggressively use lumpy reclaim) > > change lumpy reclaim using condition. but it isn't enough change. > > > > lumpy reclaim don't only mean isolate neighber page, but also do pageout as synchronous. > > this patch does it. > > > > Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com> > > Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> > > Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> > > Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> > > Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> > > Seems fair although the changelog could be better. Maybe something like? > > ==== > > Commit 33c120ed2843090e2bd316de1588b8bf8b96cbde increased how aggressive > lumpy reclaim was by isolating both active and inactive pages for asynchronous > lumpy reclaim on costly-high-order pages and for cheap-high-order when memory > pressure is high. However, if the system is under heavy pressure and there > are dirty pages, asynchronous IO may not be sufficient to reclaim a suitable > page in time. > > This patch causes the caller to enter synchronous lumpy reclaim for > costly-high-order pages and for cheap-high-order pages when under memory > pressure. > ==== > > Whether the changelog is updated or not though; > > Reviewed-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cool!
Andrew, Could you please replace vmscan-low-order-lumpy-reclaim-also-should-use-pageout_io_sync.patch with following patch?
=================================== Subject: vmscan: low order lumpy reclaim also should use PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Commit 33c120ed2843090e2bd316de1588b8bf8b96cbde increased how aggressive lumpy reclaim was by isolating both active and inactive pages for asynchronous lumpy reclaim on costly-high-order pages and for cheap-high-order when memory pressure is high. However, if the system is under heavy pressure and there are dirty pages, asynchronous IO may not be sufficient to reclaim a suitable page in time.
This patch causes the caller to enter synchronous lumpy reclaim for costly-high-order pages and for cheap-high-order pages when under memory pressure.
Minchan.kim@gmail.com said:
Andy added synchronous lumpy reclaim with c661b078fd62abe06fd11fab4ac5e4eeafe26b6d. At that time, lumpy reclaim is not agressive. His intension is just for high-order users.(above PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER).
After some time, Rik added aggressive lumpy reclaim with 33c120ed2843090e2bd316de1588b8bf8b96cbde. His intention was to do lumpy reclaim when high-order users and trouble getting a small set of contiguous pages.
So we also have to add synchronous pageout for small set of contiguous pages.
Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com> Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <Minchan.kim@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> --- mm/vmscan.c | 29 +++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff -puN mm/vmscan.c~vmscan-low-order-lumpy-reclaim-also-should-use-pageout_io_sync mm/vmscan.c --- a/mm/vmscan.c~vmscan-low-order-lumpy-reclaim-also-should-use-pageout_io_sync +++ a/mm/vmscan.c @@ -1059,6 +1059,19 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis unsigned long nr_scanned = 0; unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0; struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = get_reclaim_stat(zone, sc); + int lumpy_reclaim = 0; + + /* + * If we need a large contiguous chunk of memory, or have + * trouble getting a small set of contiguous pages, we + * will reclaim both active and inactive pages. + * + * We use the same threshold as pageout congestion_wait below. + */ + if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) + lumpy_reclaim = 1; + else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) + lumpy_reclaim = 1; pagevec_init(&pvec, 1); @@ -1071,19 +1084,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis unsigned long nr_freed; unsigned long nr_active; unsigned int count[NR_LRU_LISTS] = { 0, }; - int mode = ISOLATE_INACTIVE; - - /* - * If we need a large contiguous chunk of memory, or have - * trouble getting a small set of contiguous pages, we - * will reclaim both active and inactive pages. - * - * We use the same threshold as pageout congestion_wait below. - */ - if (sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) - mode = ISOLATE_BOTH; - else if (sc->order && priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2) - mode = ISOLATE_BOTH; + int mode = lumpy_reclaim ? ISOLATE_BOTH : ISOLATE_INACTIVE; nr_taken = sc->isolate_pages(sc->swap_cluster_max, &page_list, &nr_scan, sc->order, mode, @@ -1120,7 +1121,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis * but that should be acceptable to the caller */ if (nr_freed < nr_taken && !current_is_kswapd() && - sc->order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) { + lumpy_reclaim) { congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10); /* _
|  |