Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:28:51 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, riel@redhat.com, mhocko@suse.cz,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, jslaby@suse.cz,
        Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, zcalusic@bitsync.net, vbabka@suse.cz,
        vdavydov@parallels.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: Obey indeed proportional scanning for kswapd
 and memcg
Message-ID: <20151125112851.GP19677@suse.de>
References: <1448426900-2907-1-git-send-email-baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1448426900-2907-1-git-send-email-baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1829
Lines: 41

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:48:20PM +0800, Yaowei Bai wrote:
> Commit e82e0561dae9f3ae5 ("mm: vmscan: obey proportional scanning
> requirements for kswapd") intended to preserve the proportional scanning
> and reclaim what was requested by get_scan_count() for kswapd and memcg
> by stopping reclaiming one type(anon or file) LRU and reducing the other's
> amount of scanning proportional to the original scan target.
> 
> So the way to determine which LRU should be stopped reclaiming should be
> comparing scanned/unscanned percentages to the original scan target of two
> lru types instead of absolute values what implemented currently, because
> larger absolute value doesn't mean larger percentage, there shall be
> chance that larger absolute value with smaller percentage, for instance:
> 
> 	target_file = 1000
> 	target_anon = 500
> 	nr_file = 500
> 	nr_anon = 400
> 
> in this case, because nr_file > nr_anon, according to current implement,
> we will stop scanning anon lru and shrink file lru. This breaks
> proportional scanning intent and makes more unproportional.
> 
> This patch changes to compare percentage to the original scan target to
> determine which lru should be shrunk.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com>

This one has gone back and forth a few times in the past. It really was
deliberate that the scanning was proportional to the scan target. While
I see what your concern is, it's unclear what the actual impact is. Have
you done any testing to check if the proposed new behaviour is actually
better?

-- 
Mel Gorman
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/