Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:44:55 +0800
From:   Vovo Yang <vovoy@chromium.org>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@chromium.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: fix not scanning anonymous pages when
 detecting file refaults
Message-ID: <20190628084455.GA59379@google.com>
References: <20190619080835.GA68312@google.com>
 <20190627184123.GA11181@cmpxchg.org>
 <20190628065138.GA251482@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190628065138.GA251482@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 03:51:38PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:41:23PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > 
> > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> > 
> > Your change makes sense - we should indeed not force cache trimming
> > only while the page cache is experiencing refaults.
> > 
> > I can't say I fully understand the changelog, though. The problem of
> 
> I guess the point of the patch is "actual_reclaim" paramter made divergency
> to balance file vs. anon LRU in get_scan_count. Thus, it ends up scanning
> file LRU active/inactive list at file thrashing state.
> 
> So, Fixes: 2a2e48854d70 ("mm: vmscan: fix IO/refault regression in cache workingset transition")
> would make sense to me since it introduces the parameter.
> 

Thanks for the review and explanation, I will update the changelog to
make it clear.

> > forcing cache trimming while there is enough page cache is older than
> > the commit you refer to. It could be argued that this commit is
> > incomplete - it could have added refault detection not just to
> > inactive:active file balancing, but also the file:anon balancing; but
> > it didn't *cause* this problem.
> > 
> > Shouldn't this be
> > 
> > Fixes: e9868505987a ("mm,vmscan: only evict file pages when we have plenty")
> > Fixes: 7c5bd705d8f9 ("mm: memcg: only evict file pages when we have plenty")
> 
> That would affect, too but it would be trouble to have stable backport
> since we don't have refault machinery in there.