Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

On 2017/6/7 10:53, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 09:00:55PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote: >> On 2017/1/31 7:40, Minchan Kim wrote: >>> Hi Vinayak, >>> Sorry for late response. It was Lunar New Year holidays. >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 01:43:23PM +0530, vinayak menon wrote:

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

On 2017/6/7 10:53, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 09:00:55PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote: >> On 2017/1/31 7:40, Minchan Kim wrote: >>> Hi Vinayak, >>> Sorry for late response. It was Lunar New Year holidays. >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 01:43:23PM +0530, vinayak menon wrote:

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

Hi, On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 09:00:55PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote: > On 2017/1/31 7:40, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hi Vinayak, > > Sorry for late response. It was Lunar New Year holidays. > > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 01:43:23PM +0530, vinayak menon wrote: > >>> Thanks for the explain. However, such

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

Hi, On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 09:00:55PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote: > On 2017/1/31 7:40, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hi Vinayak, > > Sorry for late response. It was Lunar New Year holidays. > > > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 01:43:23PM +0530, vinayak menon wrote: > >>> Thanks for the explain. However, such

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

On 2017/1/31 7:40, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi Vinayak, > Sorry for late response. It was Lunar New Year holidays. > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 01:43:23PM +0530, vinayak menon wrote: >>> Thanks for the explain. However, such case can happen with THP page >>> as well as slab. In case of THP page,

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

On 2017/1/31 7:40, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi Vinayak, > Sorry for late response. It was Lunar New Year holidays. > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 01:43:23PM +0530, vinayak menon wrote: >>> Thanks for the explain. However, such case can happen with THP page >>> as well as slab. In case of THP page,

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

Hi Vinayak, Sorry for late response. It was Lunar New Year holidays. On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 01:43:23PM +0530, vinayak menon wrote: > > > > Thanks for the explain. However, such case can happen with THP page > > as well as slab. In case of THP page, nr_scanned is 1 but nr_reclaimed > > could be

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

Hi Vinayak, Sorry for late response. It was Lunar New Year holidays. On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 01:43:23PM +0530, vinayak menon wrote: > > > > Thanks for the explain. However, such case can happen with THP page > > as well as slab. In case of THP page, nr_scanned is 1 but nr_reclaimed > > could be

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

> > Thanks for the explain. However, such case can happen with THP page > as well as slab. In case of THP page, nr_scanned is 1 but nr_reclaimed > could be 512 so I think vmpressure should have a logic to prevent undeflow > regardless of slab shrinking. > I see. Going to send a vmpressure fix.

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

> > Thanks for the explain. However, such case can happen with THP page > as well as slab. In case of THP page, nr_scanned is 1 but nr_reclaimed > could be 512 so I think vmpressure should have a logic to prevent undeflow > regardless of slab shrinking. > I see. Going to send a vmpressure fix.

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

Hi Vinayak, On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:53:38AM +0530, vinayak menon wrote: > Hi Minchan > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hello Vinayak, > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:08:38PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote: > >> It is noticed that during a global

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

Hi Vinayak, On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:53:38AM +0530, vinayak menon wrote: > Hi Minchan > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hello Vinayak, > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:08:38PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote: > >> It is noticed that during a global reclaim the memory >

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

Hi Minchan On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hello Vinayak, > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:08:38PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote: >> It is noticed that during a global reclaim the memory >> reclaimed via shrinking the slabs can sometimes result >> in

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

Hi Minchan On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:57 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hello Vinayak, > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:08:38PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote: >> It is noticed that during a global reclaim the memory >> reclaimed via shrinking the slabs can sometimes result >> in reclaimed pages being

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

Hello Vinayak, On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:08:38PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote: > It is noticed that during a global reclaim the memory > reclaimed via shrinking the slabs can sometimes result > in reclaimed pages being greater than the scanned pages > in shrink_node. When this is passed to

Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

Hello Vinayak, On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 05:08:38PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote: > It is noticed that during a global reclaim the memory > reclaimed via shrinking the slabs can sometimes result > in reclaimed pages being greater than the scanned pages > in shrink_node. When this is passed to

[PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

It is noticed that during a global reclaim the memory reclaimed via shrinking the slabs can sometimes result in reclaimed pages being greater than the scanned pages in shrink_node. When this is passed to vmpressure, the unsigned arithmetic results in the pressure value to be huge, thus resulting

[PATCH] mm: vmscan: do not pass reclaimed slab to vmpressure

It is noticed that during a global reclaim the memory reclaimed via shrinking the slabs can sometimes result in reclaimed pages being greater than the scanned pages in shrink_node. When this is passed to vmpressure, the unsigned arithmetic results in the pressure value to be huge, thus resulting