On Mon 17-12-12 13:12:33, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> A swappiness of 0 has a slightly different meaning for global reclaim
> (may swap if file cache really low) and memory cgroup reclaim (never
> swap, ever).
> 
> In addition, global reclaim at highest priority will scan all LRU
> lists equal to their size and ignore other balancing heuristics.
> UNLESS swappiness forbids swapping, then the lists are balanced based
> on recent reclaim effectiveness.  UNLESS file cache is running low,
> then anonymous pages are force-scanned.
> 
> This (total mess of a) behaviour is implicit and not obvious from the
> way the code is organized.  At least make it apparent in the code flow
> and document the conditions.  It will be it easier to come up with
> sane semantics later.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <han...@cmpxchg.org>

Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.cz>

Thanks!

> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 648a4db..c37deaf 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1644,7 +1644,6 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, 
> struct scan_control *sc,
>       struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = &lruvec->reclaim_stat;
>       u64 fraction[2], denominator;
>       enum lru_list lru;
> -     int noswap = 0;
>       bool force_scan = false;
>       struct zone *zone = lruvec_zone(lruvec);
>  
> @@ -1665,13 +1664,38 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, 
> struct scan_control *sc,
>  
>       /* If we have no swap space, do not bother scanning anon pages. */
>       if (!sc->may_swap || (nr_swap_pages <= 0)) {
> -             noswap = 1;
>               fraction[0] = 0;
>               fraction[1] = 1;
>               denominator = 1;
>               goto out;
>       }
>  
> +     /*
> +      * Global reclaim will swap to prevent OOM even with no
> +      * swappiness, but memcg users want to use this knob to
> +      * disable swapping for individual groups completely when
> +      * using the memory controller's swap limit feature would be
> +      * too expensive.
> +      */
> +     if (!global_reclaim(sc) && !vmscan_swappiness(sc)) {
> +             fraction[0] = 0;
> +             fraction[1] = 1;
> +             denominator = 1;
> +             goto out;
> +     }
> +
> +     /*
> +      * Do not apply any pressure balancing cleverness when the
> +      * system is close to OOM, scan both anon and file equally
> +      * (unless the swappiness setting disagrees with swapping).
> +      */
> +     if (!sc->priority && vmscan_swappiness(sc)) {
> +             fraction[0] = 1;
> +             fraction[1] = 1;
> +             denominator = 1;
> +             goto out;
> +     }
> +
>       anon  = get_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_ANON) +
>               get_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON);
>       file  = get_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_ACTIVE_FILE) +
> @@ -1753,13 +1777,10 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, 
> struct scan_control *sc,
>               unsigned long scan;
>  
>               size = get_lru_size(lruvec, lru);
> -             if (sc->priority || noswap || !vmscan_swappiness(sc)) {
> -                     scan = size >> sc->priority;
> -                     if (!scan && force_scan)
> -                             scan = min(size, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX);
> -                     scan = div64_u64(scan * fraction[file], denominator);
> -             } else
> -                     scan = size;
> +             scan = size >> sc->priority;
> +             if (!scan && force_scan)
> +                     scan = min(size, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX);
> +             scan = div64_u64(scan * fraction[file], denominator);
>               nr[lru] = scan;
>       }
>  }
> -- 
> 1.7.11.7
> 

-- 
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/

Reply via email to