lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [rfc 2/3] mm: vmscan: treat inactive cycling as neutral
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:32:13 +0100
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com> wrote:

> Each page that is scanned but put back to the inactive list is counted
> as a successful reclaim, which tips the balance between file and anon
> lists more towards the cycling list.
>
> This does - in my opinion - not make too much sense, but at the same
> time it was not much of a problem, as the conditions that lead to an
> inactive list cycle were mostly temporary - locked page, concurrent
> page table changes, backing device congested - or at least limited to
> a single reclaimer that was not allowed to unmap or meddle with IO.
> More important than being moderately rare, those conditions should
> apply to both anon and mapped file pages equally and balance out in
> the end.
>
> Recently, we started cycling file pages in particular on the inactive
> list much more aggressively, for used-once detection of mapped pages,
> and when avoiding writeback from direct reclaim.
>
> Those rotated pages do not exactly speak for the reclaimability of the
> list they sit on and we risk putting immense pressure on file list for
> no good reason.
>
> Instead, count each page not reclaimed and put back to any list,
> active or inactive, as rotated, so they are neutral with respect to
> the scan/rotate ratio of the list class, as they should be.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>

I think this makes sense.

Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>

I wonder it may be better to have victim list for written-backed pages..



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-07 03:37    [W:0.190 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site