Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754083AbbKXNhR (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:37:17 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:36533 "EHLO mail-wm0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752603AbbKXNhN (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 08:37:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:37:10 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Vlastimil Babka , Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, vmscan: do not overestimate anonymous reclaimable pages Message-ID: <20151124133710.GJ29472@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1448366100-11023-1-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <1448366100-11023-3-git-send-email-mhocko@kernel.org> <20151124130740.GG29014@esperanza> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151124130740.GG29014@esperanza> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1521 Lines: 33 On Tue 24-11-15 16:07:40, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:55:00PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > zone_reclaimable_pages considers all anonymous pages on LRUs reclaimable > > if there is at least one entry on the swap storage left. This can be > > really misleading when the swap is short on space and skew reclaim > > decisions based on zone_reclaimable_pages. Fix this by clamping the > > number to the minimum of the available swap space and anon LRU pages. > > Suppose there's 100M of swap and 1G of anon pages. This patch makes > zone_reclaimable_pages return 100M instead of 1G in this case. If you > rotate 600M of oldest anon pages, which is quite possible, > zone_reclaimable will start returning false, which is wrong, because > there are still 400M pages that were not even scanned, besides those > 600M of rotated pages could have become reclaimable after their ref bits > got cleared. Uhm, OK, I guess you are right. Making zone_reclaimable less conservative can lead to hard to expect results. Scratch this patch please. > I think it is the name of zone_reclaimable_pages which is misleading. It > should be called something like "zone_scannable_pages" judging by how it > is used in zone_reclaimable. Thanks! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/