Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:50:34 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: elladan@eskimo.com, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       tytso@mit.edu, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: evict use-once pages first (v2)
Message-ID: <20090430215034.4748e615@riellaptop.surriel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090430181340.6f07421d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20090428044426.GA5035@eskimo.com>
	<20090428192907.556f3a34@bree.surriel.com>
	<1240987349.4512.18.camel@laptop>
	<20090429114708.66114c03@cuia.bos.redhat.com>
	<20090430072057.GA4663@eskimo.com>
	<20090430174536.d0f438dd.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20090430205936.0f8b29fc@riellaptop.surriel.com>
	<20090430181340.6f07421d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2236
Lines: 58

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:13:40 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:59:36 -0400
> Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:45:36 -0700
> > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Were you able to tell whether altering /proc/sys/vm/swappiness
> > > appropriately regulated the rate at which the mapped page count
> > > decreased?
> > 
> > That should not make a difference at all for mapped file
> > pages, after the change was merged that makes the VM ignores
> > the referenced bit of mapped active file pages.
> > 
> > Ever since the split LRU code was merged, all that the
> > swappiness controls is the aggressiveness of file vs
> > anonymous LRU scanning.
> 
> Which would cause exactly the problem Elladan saw?

Yes.  It was not noticable in the initial split LRU code,
but after we decided to ignore the referenced bit on active
file pages and deactivate pages regardless, it has gotten
exacerbated.

That change was very good for scalability, so we should not
undo it.  However, we do need to put something in place to
protect the working set from streaming IO.

> > Currently the kernel has no effective code to protect the 
> > page cache working set from streaming IO.  Elladan's bug
> > report shows that we do need some kind of protection...
> 
> Seems to me that reclaim should treat swapcache-backed mapped mages in
> a similar fashion to file-backed mapped pages?

Swapcache-backed pages are not on the same set of LRUs as
file-backed mapped pages.

Furthermore, there is no streaming IO on the anon LRUs like
there is on the file LRUs. Only the file LRUs need (and want)
use-once replacement, which means that we only need special
protection of the working set for file-backed pages.

When we implement working set protection, we might as well
do it for frequently accessed unmapped pages too.  There is
no reason to restrict this protection to mapped pages.

-- 
All rights reversed.
--
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/