lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: + mm-vmscan-add-mm_vmscan_inactive_list_is_low-tracepoint.patch added to -mm tree
Hello,

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:52:39PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 11-01-17 08:52:50, Minchan Kim wrote:
> [...]
> > > @@ -2055,8 +2055,8 @@ static bool inactive_list_is_low(struct
> > > if (!file && !total_swap_pages)
> > > return false;
> > >
> > > - inactive = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, file * LRU_FILE);
> > > - active = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, file * LRU_FILE + LRU_ACTIVE);
> > > + total_inactive = inactive = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, file * LRU_FILE);
> > > + total_active = active = lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, file * LRU_FILE + LRU_ACTIVE);
> > >
> >
> > the decision of deactivating is based on eligible zone's LRU size,
> > not whole zone so why should we need to get a trace of all zones's LRU?
>
> Strictly speaking, the total_ counters are not necessary for making the
> decision. I found reporting those numbers useful regardless because this
> will give us also an information how large is the eligible portion of
> the LRU list. We do not have any other tracepoint which would report
> that.

The patch doesn't say anything why it's useful. Could you tell why it's
useful and inactive_list_is_low should be right place?

Don't get me wrong, please. I don't want to bother you.
I really don't want to add random stuff although it's tracepoint for
debugging.

>
> [...]
> > > @@ -2223,7 +2228,7 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec
> > > * lruvec even if it has plenty of old anonymous pages unless the
> > > * system is under heavy pressure.
> > > */
> > > - if (!inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, true, sc) &&
> > > + if (!inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, true, sc, false) &&
> >
> > Hmm, I was curious why you added trace boolean arguement and found it here.
> > Yes, here is not related to deactivation directly but couldn't we help to
> > trace it unconditionally?
>
> I've had it like that when I was debugging the mentioned bug and found
> it a bit disturbing. It generated more output than I would like and it
> wasn't really clear from which code path this has been called from.

Indeed.

Personally, I want to move inactive_list_is_low in shrink_active_list
and shrink_active_list calls inactive_list_is_low(...., true),
unconditionally so that it can make code simple/clear but cannot remove
trace boolean variable , which what I want. So, it's okay if you love
your version.

>
> > With that, we can know why VM reclaim only
> > file-backed page on slow device although enough anonymous pages on fast
> > swap like zram are enough.
>
> That would be something for a separate tracepoint in g_s_c

Agree.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-12 06:13    [W:0.069 / U:11.476 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site