Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

2016-06-09 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:18:02PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 08-06-16 12:16:05, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:51:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > Rename struct zone_reclaim_stat to struct lru_cost, and m

Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

2016-06-09 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 08-06-16 12:16:05, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:51:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > Rename struct zone_reclaim_stat to struct lru_cost, and move from two > > > separate value ratios for the LRU lists to a relati

Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

2016-06-08 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:51:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > Rename struct zone_reclaim_stat to struct lru_cost, and move from two > > separate value ratios for the LRU lists to a relative LRU cost metric > > with a shared denominator. > > I

Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

2016-06-08 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 05:14:21PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:48:33PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > @@ -249,15 +249,10 @@ void rotate_reclaimable_page(struct page *page) > > } > > } > > > > -static void update_page_reclaim_stat(struct lruvec *lruvec, > > -

Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

2016-06-08 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 06-06-16 15:48:33, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is > balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat vague > notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That > concept of value is problematic, beca

Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

2016-06-08 Thread Minchan Kim
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:48:33PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is > balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat vague > notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That > concept of value is p

Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

2016-06-07 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:34:43PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is > > balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat > > vague > > notion of "value" of havin

Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

2016-06-06 Thread Rik van Riel
On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is > balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat > vague > notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That > concept of value is proble

Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

2016-06-06 Thread kbuild test robot
Hi, [auto build test ERROR on cifs/for-next] [also build test ERROR on v4.7-rc2 next-20160606] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Johannes-Weiner/mm-balance-LRU-lists-based-on-relati

[PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model

2016-06-06 Thread Johannes Weiner
Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat vague notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That concept of value is problematic, because it has caused us to count any event that remotely mak