lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] vmscan: do not force-scan file lru if its absolute size is small
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:37:07 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 08:02:56PM +0300, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > We assume there is enough inactive page cache if the size of inactive
> > file lru is greater than the size of active file lru, in which case we
> > force-scan file lru ignoring anonymous pages. While this logic works
> > fine when there are plenty of page cache pages, it fails if the size of
> > file lru is small (several MB): in this case (lru_size >> prio) will be
> > 0 for normal scan priorities, as a result, if inactive file lru happens
> > to be larger than active file lru, anonymous pages of a cgroup will
> > never get evicted unless the system experiences severe memory pressure,
> > even if there are gigabytes of unused anonymous memory there, which is
> > unfair in respect to other cgroups, whose workloads might be page cache
> > oriented.
> >
> > This patch attempts to fix this by elaborating the "enough inactive page
> > cache" check: it makes it not only check that inactive lru size > active
> > lru size, but also that we will scan something from the cgroup at the
> > current scan priority. If these conditions do not hold, we proceed to
> > SCAN_FRACT as usual.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@virtuozzo.com>
>
> This makes sense, the inactive:active ratio of the file list alone
> does not give the full picture to decide whether to skip anonymous.
>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>
> > @@ -2046,7 +2046,8 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, int swappiness,
> > * There is enough inactive page cache, do not reclaim
> > * anything from the anonymous working set right now.
> > */
> > - if (!inactive_file_is_low(lruvec)) {
> > + if (!inactive_file_is_low(lruvec) &&
> > + get_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_FILE) >> sc->priority > 0) {
>
> The > 0 seems unnecessary, no? There are too many > in this line :-)

And an update to the code comment would be helpful.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-20 23:01    [W:0.085 / U:1.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site