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;
Message-ID: <76454f39-8e41-e757-3a71-c85303c6257e@suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 17:38:14 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] mm/vmscan: Centralise timeout values for
 reclaim_throttle
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Cc:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20211008135332.19567-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
 <20211008135332.19567-7-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20211008135332.19567-7-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/8/21 15:53, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Neil Brown raised concerns about callers of reclaim_throttle specifying
> a timeout value. The original timeout values to congestion_wait() were
> probably pulled out of thin air or copy&pasted from somewhere else.
> This patch centralises the timeout values and selects a timeout based
> on the reason for reclaim throttling. These figures are also pulled
> out of the same thin air but better values may be derived
> 
> Running a workload that is throttling for inappropriate periods
> and tracing mm_vmscan_throttled can be used to pick a more appropriate
> value. Excessive throttling would pick a lower timeout where as
> excessive CPU usage in reclaim context would select a larger timeout.
> Ideally a large value would always be used and the wakeups would
> occur before a timeout but that requires careful testing.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>