Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757828AbYG2NWV (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:22:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753343AbYG2NWN (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:22:13 -0400 Received: from saeurebad.de ([85.214.36.134]:59615 "EHLO saeurebad.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753074AbYG2NWN (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:22:13 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: Rik van Riel Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: PERF: performance tests with the split LRU VM in -mm References: <20080724222510.3bbbbedc@bree.surriel.com> <20080728105742.50d6514e@cuia.bos.redhat.com> <20080728164124.8240eabe.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080728195713.42cbceed@cuia.bos.redhat.com> <20080728200311.2218af4e@cuia.bos.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:21:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20080728200311.2218af4e@cuia.bos.redhat.com> (Rik van Riel's message of "Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:03:11 -0400") Message-ID: <87y73k4yhg.fsf@saeurebad.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3290 Lines: 95 Hi, Rik van Riel writes: > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:57:13 -0400 > Rik van Riel wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:41:24 -0700 >> Andrew Morton wrote: >> >> > > Andrew, what is your preference between: >> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/15/465 >> > > and >> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=121683855132630&w=2 >> > > >> > >> > Boy. They both seem rather hacky special-cases. But that doesn't mean >> > that they're undesirable hacky special-cases. I guess the second one >> > looks a bit more "algorithmic" and a bit less hacky-special-case. But >> > it all depends on testing.. >> >> I prefer the second one, since it removes the + 1 magic (at least, >> for the higher priorities), instead of adding new magic like the >> other patch does. > > Btw, didn't you add that "+ 1" originally early on in the 2.6 VM? > > Do you remember its purpose? > > Does it still make sense to have that "+ 1" in the split LRU VM? > > Could we get away with just removing it unconditionally? Here is my original patch that just gets rid of it. It did not cause any problems to me on high pressure. Rik, you said on IRC that you now also think the patch is safe..? Hannes --- From: Johannes Weiner Subject: mm: don't accumulate scan pressure on unrelated lists During each reclaim scan we accumulate scan pressure on unrelated lists which will result in bogus scans and unwanted reclaims eventually. Scanning lists with few reclaim candidates results in a lot of rotation and therefor also disturbs the list balancing, putting even more pressure on the wrong lists. In a test-case with much streaming IO, and therefor a crowded inactive file page list, swapping started because a) anon pages were reclaimed after swap_cluster_max reclaim invocations -- nr_scan of this list has just accumulated b) active file pages were scanned because *their* nr_scan has also accumulated through the same logic. And this in return created a lot of rotation for file pages and resulted in a decrease of file list priority, again increasing the pressure on anon pages. The result was an evicted working set of anon pages while there were tons of inactive file pages that should have been taken instead. Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner --- mm/vmscan.c | 7 ++----- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -1458,16 +1458,13 @@ static unsigned long shrink_zone(int pri if (scan_global_lru(sc)) { int file = is_file_lru(l); int scan; - /* - * Add one to nr_to_scan just to make sure that the - * kernel will slowly sift through each list. - */ + scan = zone_page_state(zone, NR_LRU_BASE + l); if (priority) { scan >>= priority; scan = (scan * percent[file]) / 100; } - zone->lru[l].nr_scan += scan + 1; + zone->lru[l].nr_scan += scan; nr[l] = zone->lru[l].nr_scan; if (nr[l] >= sc->swap_cluster_max) zone->lru[l].nr_scan = 0; -- 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/