Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201007161736.ACC6E387@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20201007161749.4C56D1F1@viggo.jf.intel.com>
 <20201029081454.GA30442@linux> <99dff0cd-2b1a-2c41-2596-eda7ecc7c160@intel.com>
 <CAHbLzkpfwsR663Kv_16kW81aZ7sLMPQp6WYbqwBBpofq3x0HNg@mail.gmail.com> <20201029190804.GA4205@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20201029190804.GA4205@localhost.localdomain>
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:30:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkowJQjkqweVg=g_HTS25Nx4U=boeD3bTtVJ1JBdHsBOtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/9] mm/vmscan: Consider anonymous pages without swap
To:     osalvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, kbusch@kernel.org,
        "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:08 PM osalvador <osalvador@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:57:32AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > IMHO, we don't have to modify those two places at all. They are used
> > to rebalance the anon lru active/inactive ratio even if we did not try
> > to evict anon pages at all, so "total_swap_pages" is used instead of
> > checking swappiness and available swap space.
> >
> > The changes may result in imbalanced anon lru.
>
> I might be missing something, so bear with me.
>
> It is true that since we are only rebalancing the lists, we do not need to
> check for swap space yet, but here we are also adding a new end-point where we
> can migrate to in case of memory pressure.
>
> So in case we can demote pages, it makes sense to proceed with the aging
> and rebalancing regardless of whether we have swap in place, right?

Yes, makes sense. I missed that point.

>
> But maybe the right procedure would be to perform some sort of the
> following check in those two places:
>
>         if (total_swap_pages || can_migrate_to_demote_node)
>                 - proceed_with_rebalancing_or_aging

Looks sane to me.

>
> --
> Oscar Salvador
> SUSE L3