Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm/vmscan: don't forcely shrink active anon lru list

2019-02-26 Thread Rik van Riel
On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 15:04 +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > I think we should leave anon aging only for !SCAN_FILE cases. > At least aging was definitely invented for the SCAN_FRACT mode which > was the > main mode at the time it was added by the commit: > and I think would be reasonable to

Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm/vmscan: don't forcely shrink active anon lru list

2019-02-26 Thread Andrey Ryabinin
On 2/22/19 9:22 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 08:43:37PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: >> shrink_node_memcg() always forcely shrink active anon list. >> This doesn't seem like correct behavior. If system/memcg has no swap, it's >> absolutely pointless to rebalance anon lru

Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm/vmscan: don't forcely shrink active anon lru list

2019-02-22 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 08:43:37PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: > shrink_node_memcg() always forcely shrink active anon list. > This doesn't seem like correct behavior. If system/memcg has no swap, it's > absolutely pointless to rebalance anon lru lists. > And in case we did scan the active anon

[PATCH 5/5] mm/vmscan: don't forcely shrink active anon lru list

2019-02-22 Thread Andrey Ryabinin
shrink_node_memcg() always forcely shrink active anon list. This doesn't seem like correct behavior. If system/memcg has no swap, it's absolutely pointless to rebalance anon lru lists. And in case we did scan the active anon list above, it's unclear why would we need this additional force scan. If