From patchwork Fri Sep 25 11:49:12 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: zhong jiang X-Patchwork-Id: 11799547 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCC8A6CB for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:49:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF122083B for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:49:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3CF122083B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 7751A90000E; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:49:27 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: linux-mm-outgoing@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6D5F98E0001; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:49:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5C5F890000E; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:49:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0166.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.166]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FBE58E0001 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:49:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin03.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C795180AD801 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:49:27 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77301413574.03.house39_4c1133c27167 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC0728A4E8 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:49:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Summary: 1,0,0,a1ad04502a6d1556,d41d8cd98f00b204,zhongjiang-ali@linux.alibaba.com,,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:960:973:988:989:1260:1261:1345:1437:1534:1541:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2376:2393:2559:2562:2693:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3353:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:5007:6261:9010:10004:11026:11658:11914:12043:12296:12297:12555:12895:13069:13161:13229:13311:13357:14096:14181:14384:14394:14721:21080:21451:21554:21627:21939:30054,0,RBL:115.124.30.131:@linux.alibaba.com:.lbl8.mailshell.net-62.20.2.100 64.201.201.201;04yr66wx5qd9jpmnz6tp5dftnu9i5yctk68wfpm6qwttpsjfusxxqrgj86jj57b.egpi4krsneua8rdd1exuhnmg3n7ixbgotrw5tjm7r5xwi44c5f7q7jumpick8ai.e-lbl8.mailshell.net-223.238.255.100,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fp,MSBL:0,DNSBL:neutral,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:24,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: house39_4c1133c27167 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2591 Received: from out30-131.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-131.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.131]) by imf13.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:49:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R151e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e04420;MF=zhongjiang-ali@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=4;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0UA1niGX_1601034552; Received: from localhost(mailfrom:zhongjiang-ali@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0UA1niGX_1601034552) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Fri, 25 Sep 2020 19:49:17 +0800 From: zhongjiang-ali To: hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@suse.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: [PATCH] mm: Do not deactivate when the cgroup has plenty inactive page Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 19:49:12 +0800 Message-Id: <1601034552-95831-1-git-send-email-zhongjiang-ali@linux.alibaba.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.3.1 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.007737, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: After appling the series patches(mm: fix page aging across multiple cgroups), cgroup memory reclaim strategy is based on reclaim root's inactive:active ratio. if the target lruvec need to deactivate, its children cgroup also will deactivate. That will result in hot page to be reclaimed and other cgroup's cold page will be left, which is not expected. The patch will not force deactivate when inactive_is_low is not true unless we has scanned the inactive list and memory is unable to reclaim. Signed-off-by: zhongjiang-ali --- mm/vmscan.c | 15 ++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c index 466fc31..77d395f 100644 --- a/mm/vmscan.c +++ b/mm/vmscan.c @@ -2407,8 +2407,21 @@ static void get_scan_count(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, case SCAN_FILE: case SCAN_ANON: /* Scan one type exclusively */ - if ((scan_balance == SCAN_FILE) != file) + if ((scan_balance == SCAN_FILE) != file) { scan = 0; + } else { + /* + * Reclaim memory is based on the root's inactive: active + * ratio, but it is possible that silbing cgroup has a lot + * of cold memory to reclaim rather than reclaim the hot + * cache in the current cgroup. + */ + if (!sc->force_deactivate && is_active_lru(lru) && + !inactive_is_low(lruvec, lru - LRU_ACTIVE)) { + if (sc->may_deactivate & (1 << file)) + scan = 0; + } + } break; default: /* Look ma, no brain */