> Hi,
>
> Looks like I have a handle on what's wrong with the 2.1.130 vm (in
> particular, its tendency to cache too much at the expense of
> swapping).
>
> The real problem seems to be that shrink_mmap() can fail for two
> completely separate reasons. First of all, we might fail to find a
> free page because all of the cache pages we find are recently
> referenced. Secondly, we might fail to find a cache page at all.
>
> The first case is an example of an overactive, large cache; the second
> is an example of a very small cache. Currently, however, we treat
> these two cases pretty much the same. In the second case, the correct
> reaction is to swap, and 2.1.130 is sufficiently good at swapping that
> we do so, heavily. In the first case, high cache throughput, what we
> really _should_ be doing is to age the pages more quickly. What we
> actually do is to swap.
>
> On reflection, there is a completely natural way of distinguishing
> between these two cases, and that is to extend the size of the
> shrink_mmap() pass whenever we encounter many recently touched pages.
> This is easy to do: simply restricting the "count_min" accounting in
> shrink_mmap to avoid including salvageable but recently-touched pages
> will automatically cause us to age faster as we encounter more touched
> pages in the cache.
>
> The patch below both makes sense from this perspective and seems to
> work, which is always a good sign! Moreover, it is inherently
> self-tuning. The more recently-accessed cache pages we encounter, the
> faster we will age the cache.
>
Hi!
Yesterday, I was trying to understand the very same problem you're
speaking of. Sometimes kswapd decides to swapout lots of things,
sometimes not.
I applied your patch, but it didn't solve the problem.
To be honest, things are now even slightly worse. :(
Sample output of vmstat 1, while copying lots of stuff to /dev/null:
procs memory swap io system cpu
r b w swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id
1 1 0 23696 1656 3276 25128 0 0 6425 62 304 284 20 34 46
2 0 1 23696 1444 3276 25344 0 0 9265 0 325 315 26 49 26
2 0 1 23696 1384 3276 25408 0 0 10507 0 333 365 20 55 25
3 0 1 23696 1408 3276 25388 0 0 10758 0 334 336 23 55 23
2 0 0 23696 1672 3276 25132 0 0 9965 0 321 328 23 50 27
3 0 1 23692 1408 3276 25384 4 0 9582 5 315 339 23 45 32
2 0 1 23692 1400 3276 25392 0 0 9794 0 323 336 21 47 32
4 0 1 23788 1436 3276 25460 0 96 9146 24 335 325 24 44 32
2 0 1 23788 1152 3276 25736 0 0 9763 0 321 326 23 46 31
1 1 1 24760 1356 3276 26504 4 976 1326 244 349 247 21 14 65
2 0 1 25916 932 3276 28092 16 1192 1621 306 371 271 23 8 69
1 1 1 26888 976 3276 29012 12 1056 993 264 335 289 19 9 72
2 0 0 28208 1552 3276 29756 0 1320 750 330 380 276 10 6 84
1 1 1 29224 1140 3276 31176 4 1040 1444 260 357 270 33 13 54
2 0 1 30412 1200 3276 32296 8 1196 1131 304 405 274 20 8 73
3 0 1 31412 1112 3276 33384 0 1000 1092 250 344 269 18 11 71
2 0 1 32396 532 3276 34948 0 984 1570 246 359 242 19 11 70
0 3 1 33504 1476 3276 35128 0 1128 197 282 314 279 15 4 81
3 0 1 35080 648 3276 37520 0 1612 2443 403 299 325 24 13 63
2 0 1 37116 736 3276 39468 4 2276 2077 575 314 352 8 14 78
1 1 1 39368 1352 3276 41092 0 2300 1793 575 299 352 36 13 51
1 1 1 41516 644 3276 43940 0 2356 3071 589 317 353 20 18 62
1 0 2 43696 1220 3276 45544 4 2420 1848 605 321 354 20 12 68
0 2 1 44980 532 3276 47512 16 1628 2306 407 318 328 22 14 64
3 0 1 46512 1000 3276 48576 24 1832 1353 459 314 344 22 12 66
2 1 0 46932 1648 3340 48284 88 888 3131 222 344 379 23 13 64
2 1 0 46672 1656 3276 48068 108 0 6313 0 476 369 19 30 51
3 1 0 46592 19812 3276 29840 156 0 4054 0 324 357 37 22 41
I'll do some more investigation this night.
Regards,
-- Posted by Zlatko Calusic E-mail: <Zlatko.Calusic@CARNet.hr> --------------------------------------------------------------------- So much time, and so little to do.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/