lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [patch] memcg: skip scanning active lists based on individual size
From
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com> wrote:
> Reclaim decides to skip scanning an active list when the corresponding
> inactive list is above a certain size in comparison to leave the
> assumed working set alone while there are still enough reclaim
> candidates around.
>
> The memcg implementation of comparing those lists instead reports
> whether the whole memcg is low on the requested type of inactive
> pages, considering all nodes and zones.
>
> This can lead to an oversized active list not being scanned because of
> the state of the other lists in the memcg, as well as an active list
> being scanned while its corresponding inactive list has enough pages.
>
> Not only is this wrong, it's also a scalability hazard, because the
> global memory state over all nodes and zones has to be gathered for
> each memcg and zone scanned.
>
> Make these calculations purely based on the size of the two LRU lists
> that are actually affected by the outcome of the decision.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
> Cc: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>

I can't understand why memcg is designed for considering all nodes and zones.
Is it a mistake or on purpose?
Maybe Kame or Balbir can answer it.

Anyway, this change does make sense to me.

Nitpick: Please remove inactive_ratio in Documentation/cgroups/memory.txt.
I think it would be better to separate it into another patch.

--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-08-31 12:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans