Skip to content
Commit 246e87a9 authored by KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki's avatar KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Committed by Linus Torvalds
Browse files

memcg: fix get_scan_count() for small targets



During memory reclaim we determine the number of pages to be scanned per
zone as

	(anon + file) >> priority.
Assume
	scan = (anon + file) >> priority.

If scan < SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, the scan will be skipped for this time and
priority gets higher.  This has some problems.

  1. This increases priority as 1 without any scan.
     To do scan in this priority, amount of pages should be larger than 512M.
     If pages>>priority < SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, it's recorded and scan will be
     batched, later. (But we lose 1 priority.)
     If memory size is below 16M, pages >> priority is 0 and no scan in
     DEF_PRIORITY forever.

  2. If zone->all_unreclaimabe==true, it's scanned only when priority==0.
     So, x86's ZONE_DMA will never be recoverred until the user of pages
     frees memory by itself.

  3. With memcg, the limit of memory can be small. When using small memcg,
     it gets priority < DEF_PRIORITY-2 very easily and need to call
     wait_iff_congested().
     For doing scan before priorty=9, 64MB of memory should be used.

Then, this patch tries to scan SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX of pages in force...when

  1. the target is enough small.
  2. it's kswapd or memcg reclaim.

Then we can avoid rapid priority drop and may be able to recover
all_unreclaimable in a small zones.  And this patch removes nr_saved_scan.
 This will allow scanning in this priority even when pages >> priority is
very small.

Signed-off-by: default avatarKAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Acked-by: default avatarYing Han <yinghan@google.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
parent 889976db
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment