Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1417379
| From | Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 08/10] mm: deactivations shouldn't bias the LRU balance |
| Date | 2016-06-08 15:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rHLfs-eb-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rH8QO-Oc-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rH8QP-Oc-39@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:34, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Operations like MADV_FREE, FADV_DONTNEED etc. currently move any
> affected active pages to the inactive list to accelerate their reclaim
> (good) but also steer page reclaim toward that LRU type, or away from
> the other (bad).
>
> The reason why this is undesirable is that such operations are not
> part of the regular page aging cycle, and rather a fluke that doesn't
> say much about the remaining pages on that list. They might all be in
> heavy use. But once the chunk of easy victims has been purged, the VM
> continues to apply elevated pressure on the remaining hot pages. The
> other LRU, meanwhile, might have easily reclaimable pages, and there
> was never a need to steer away from it in the first place.
>
> As the previous patch outlined, we should focus on recording actually
> observed cost to steer the balance rather than speculating about the
> potential value of one LRU list over the other. In that spirit, leave
> explicitely deactivated pages to the LRU algorithm to pick up, and let
> rotations decide which list is the easiest to reclaim.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> ---
> mm/swap.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> index 645d21242324..ae07b469ddca 100644
> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -538,7 +538,6 @@ static void lru_deactivate_file_fn(struct page *page, struct lruvec *lruvec,
>
> if (active)
> __count_vm_event(PGDEACTIVATE);
> - lru_note_cost(lruvec, !file, hpage_nr_pages(page));
> }
>
>
> @@ -546,7 +545,6 @@ static void lru_deactivate_fn(struct page *page, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> void *arg)
> {
> if (PageLRU(page) && PageActive(page) && !PageUnevictable(page)) {
> - int file = page_is_file_cache(page);
> int lru = page_lru_base_type(page);
>
> del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru + LRU_ACTIVE);
> @@ -555,7 +553,6 @@ static void lru_deactivate_fn(struct page *page, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> add_page_to_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru);
>
> __count_vm_event(PGDEACTIVATE);
> - lru_note_cost(lruvec, !file, hpage_nr_pages(page));
> }
> }
>
> --
> 2.8.3
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 08/10] mm: deactivations shouldn't bias the LRU balance Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> - 2016-06-06 22:00 +0200 Re: [PATCH 08/10] mm: deactivations shouldn't bias the LRU balance Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-08 10:20 +0200 Re: [PATCH 08/10] mm: deactivations shouldn't bias the LRU balance Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-06-08 15:00 +0200
csiph-web