Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:29:57 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages? |
| |
* Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> [2009-08-16 12:55:22]:
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Rik van Riel wrote: > > Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > > Right, but I meant busty page allocations and accesses on them, which > > > can make a large continuous segment of referenced pages in LRU list, > > > say 50MB. They may or may not be valuable as a whole, however a local > > > algorithm may keep the first 4MB and drop the remaining 46MB. > > > > I wonder if the problem is that we simply do not keep a large > > enough inactive list in Jeff's test. If we do not, pages do > > not have a chance to be referenced again before the reclaim > > code comes in. > > Exactly, that's the case I call the list FIFO. > > > The cgroup stats should show how many active anon and inactive > > anon pages there are in the cgroup. > > Jeff, can you have a look at these stats? Thanks!
Another experiment would be to toy with memory.swappiness (although defaults should work well). Could you compare the in-guest values of nr_*active* with the cgroup values as seen by the host?
-- Balbir
| |