On Fri 14-12-12 10:43:55, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > >I can answer the later. Because memsw comes with its price and > >swappiness is much cheaper. On the other hand it makes sense that > >swappiness==0 doesn't swap at all. Or do you think we should get back to > >_almost_ doesn't swap at all? > > swappiness==0 will swap in emergencies, specifically when we have > almost no page cache left, we will still swap things out: > > if (global_reclaim(sc)) { > free = zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES); > if (unlikely(file + free <= high_wmark_pages(zone))) { > /* > * If we have very few page cache pages, force-scan > * anon pages. > */ > fraction[0] = 1; > fraction[1] = 0; > denominator = 1; > goto out; > > This makes sense, because people who set swappiness==0 but > do have swap space available would probably prefer some > emergency swapping over an OOM kill.
Yes, but this is the global reclaim path. I was arguing about swappiness==0 & memcg. As this patch doesn't make a big difference for the global case (as both the changelog and you mentioned) then we should focus on whether this is desirable change for the memcg path. I think it makes sense to keep "no swapping at all for memcg semantic" as we have it currently. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/