On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 09:51:56AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 22:17 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016, Ebru Akagunduz wrote:
> > > in Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 05:35:50PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >?
> > > > Am I forgetting anything obvious?
> > > >?
> > > > Is this too aggressive?
> > > >?
> > > > Not aggressive enough?
> > > >?
> > > > Could PGPGOUT + PGSWPOUT be a useful
> > > > in-between between just PGSWPOUT or
> > > > PGSTEAL_*?
> >
> > I've no idea offhand, would have to study what each of those
> > actually means: I'm really not familiar with them myself.
>
> There are a few levels of page reclaim activity:
>
> PGSTEAL_* - any page was reclaimed, this could just
> ? ? ? ? ? ? be file pages for streaming file IO,etc
>
> PGPGOUT ? - the VM wrote pages back to disk to reclaim
> ? ? ? ? ? ? them, this could include file pages
>
> PGSWPOUT ?- the VM wrote something to swap to reclaim
> ? ? ? ? ? ? memory
>
> I am not sure which level of aggressiveness khugepaged
> should check against, but my gut instinct would probably
> be the second or third.
I tested with PGPGOUT, it does not help as I expect.
As Rik's suggestion, PSWPOUT and ALLOCSTALL can be good.
I started to prepare the patch last week. Just wanted to
make you sure.
Kind regards.