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: <20210310174603.5093-1-shy828301@gmail.com> <20210310174603.5093-14-shy828301@gmail.com>
 <CALvZod5q5LDEfUMuvO7V2hTf+oCsBGXKZn3tBByOXL952wqbRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbLzkpX0h2_FpeOWfrK3AO8RY4GE=wDqgSwFt69vn+roo6U3A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbLzkpX0h2_FpeOWfrK3AO8RY4GE=wDqgSwFt69vn+roo6U3A@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:08:24 -0800
Message-ID: <CALvZod4hSCBsXPisPT_Tai3kHW1Oo5k8z2ihbSgmLsMTAqWGHg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v9 PATCH 13/13] mm: vmscan: shrink deferred objects proportional
 to priority
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:54 AM Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:24 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 9:46 AM Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The number of deferred objects might get windup to an absurd number, and it
> > > results in clamp of slab objects.  It is undesirable for sustaining workingset.
> > >
> > > So shrink deferred objects proportional to priority and cap nr_deferred to twice
> > > of cache items.
> > >
> > > The idea is borrowed from Dave Chinner's patch:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20191031234618.15403-13-david@fromorbit.com/
> > >
> > > Tested with kernel build and vfs metadata heavy workload in our production
> > > environment, no regression is spotted so far.
> >
> > Did you run both of these workloads in the same cgroup or separate cgroups?
>
> Both are covered.
>

Have you tried just this patch i.e. without the first 12 patches?