Hi David,
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:24:48PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Minchan Kim wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 24efcc20af91..5d2f3fa41e92 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -2174,8 +2174,17 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> > }
> >
> > if (unlikely(pgdatfile + pgdatfree <= total_high_wmark)) {
> > - scan_balance = SCAN_ANON;
> > - goto out;
> > + /*
> > + * force SCAN_ANON if inactive anonymous LRU lists of
> > + * eligible zones are enough pages. Otherwise, thrashing
> > + * can be happen on the small anonymous LRU list.
> > + */
> > + if (!inactive_list_is_low(lruvec, false, NULL, sc,
> > false) &&
> > + lruvec_lru_size(lruvec, LRU_INACTIVE_ANON,
> > sc->reclaim_idx)
> > + >> sc->priority) {
> > + scan_balance = SCAN_ANON;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > }
> > }
> >
>
> Hi Minchan,
>
> This looks good and it correctly biases against SCAN_ANON for my workload
> that was thrashing the anon lrus. Feel free to use parts of my changelog
> if you'd like.
Thanks for the testing!
As considering how it's hard to find such a problem, it should be totally your
credit. So you can send the patch with detailed description. Feel free to
add my suggested-by. :)
Thanks!
