On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 11:51:54AM +0800, ????????? wrote: > OK. Thanks for your advice and I'll use label instead. > In the case of migration failures, if there are still new failures after > clearing (meaning the node is still overloaded), the scanning period would > be doubled, just like not using this patch. However, if the failures do not > increase again, then the scanning period should be adjusted according to the > following rules (i.e., ps and lr ratio). I believe this is the original > design idea, right? >
The original idea was to simply throttle scanning if the faults were useless. Your patch is probably correct but I would still like to see some evidence of the user-visible impact. What tests have you conducted to make sure it behaves better (or is at least neutral in most cases)? -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs