lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/10] mm: vmscan: Have kswapd shrink slab only once per priority
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:13:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:53:25PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > I think that outside of zone loop is better place to run shrink_slab(),
> > because shrink_slab() is not directly related to a specific zone.
> >
>
> This is true and has been the case for a long time. The slab shrinkers
> are not zone aware and it is complicated by the fact that slab usage can
> indirectly pin memory on other zones.
......
> > And this is a question not related to this patch.
> > Why nr_slab is used here to decide zone->all_unreclaimable?
>
> Slab is not directly associated with a slab but as reclaiming slab can
> free memory from unpredictable zones we do not consider a zone to be
> fully unreclaimable until we cannot shrink slab any more.

This is something the numa aware shrinkers will greatly help with -
instead of being a global shrink it becomes a
node-the-zone-belongs-to shrink, and so....

> You may be thinking that this is extremely heavy handed and you're
> right, it is.

... it is much less heavy handed than the current code...

> > nr_slab is not directly related whether a specific zone is reclaimable
> > or not, and, moreover, nr_slab is not directly related to number of
> > reclaimed pages. It just say some objects in the system are freed.
> >
>
> All true, it's the indirect relation between slab objects and the memory
> that is freed when slab objects are reclaimed that has to be taken into
> account.

Node awareness within the shrinker infrastructure and LRUs make the
relationship much more direct ;)

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-10 03:41    [W:0.193 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site