lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH mmotm] vmscan: handle may_swap more strictly (Re: [PATCH mmotm] vmscan: fix may_swap handling for memcg)
Date
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 4:58 PM, KOSAKI
> Motohiro<kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >> Hi, KOSAKI.
> >>
> >> As you know, this problem caused by if condition(priority) in shrink_zone.
> >> Let me have a question.
> >>
> >> Why do we have to prevent scan value calculation when the priority is zero ?
> >> As I know, before split-lru, we didn't do it.
> >>
> >> Is there any specific issue in case of the priority is zero ?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > example:
> >
> > get_scan_ratio() return anon:80%, file=20%. and the system have
> > 10000 anon pages and 10000 file pages.
> >
> > shrink_zone() picked up 8000 anon pages and 2000 file pages.
> > it mean 8000 file pages aren't scanned at all.
> >
> > Oops, it can makes OOM-killer although system have droppable file cache.
> >
> Hmm..Can that problem be happen in real system ?
> The file ratio is big means that file lru list scanning is so big but
> rotate is small.
> It means file lru have few reclaimable page.
>
> Isn't it ? I am confusing.
> Could you elaborate, please if you don't mind ?

hm, ok, my example was wrong.
I intention is, if there are droppable file-back pages (althout only 1 page),
OOM-killer shouldn't occuer.

many or few is unrelated.






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-09 10:27    [W:0.038 / U:8.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site