Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1572903
| 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 |
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 | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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