Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1572903

Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

From Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure
Date 2017-02-03 07:20 +0100
Message-ID <t6FnY-6fD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <t49Vg-1J9-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <t5CBP-7j5-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6n7I-2Kl-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 31-01-17 14:32:08, Vinayak Menon wrote:
> > During global reclaim, the nr_reclaimed passed to vmpressure
> > includes the pages reclaimed from slab. But the corresponding
> > scanned slab pages is not passed. This can cause total reclaimed
> > pages to be greater than scanned, causing an unsigned underflow
> > in vmpressure resulting in a critical event being sent to root
> > cgroup. So do not consider reclaimed slab pages for vmpressure
> > calculation. The reclaimed pages from slab can be excluded because
> > the freeing of a page by slab shrinking depends on each slab's
> > object population, making the cost model (i.e. scan:free) different
> > from that of LRU.
> 
> This might be true but what happens if the slab reclaim contributes
> significantly to the overal reclaim? This would be quite rare but not
> impossible.

Of course, it is better for vmpressure to cover slab but it's not
easy without page-based shrinking model, I think. It wold make
vmpressure higher easily due to low reclaim efficiency compared to
LRU pages. Yeah, vmpressure is not a perfect but no need to add
more noises, either. It's regression since 6b4f7799c6a5 so I think
this patch should go first and if someone want to cover slab really,
he should spend a time to work it well. It's too much that Vinayak
shuld make a effort for that.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org> - 2017-01-31 10:10 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to  vmpressure Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2017-02-01 07:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to  vmpressure Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-02 11:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to  vmpressure Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-02 11:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 12:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to  vmpressure Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-02 13:00 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 16:40 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to  vmpressure Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-02 17:10 +0100
              Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 06:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to  vmpressure Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-03 16:10 +0100
                Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 12:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 12:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to  vmpressure Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2017-02-03 07:20 +0100

csiph-web