Re: [PATCH 2/3][v2] vmstat: add anon_scan_ratio field to zoneinfo

From: Minchan Kim
Date: Sun Jan 17 2010 - 20:55:37 EST


On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:04 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi, KOSAKI.
>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:18 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
>> <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > Well. zone->lock and zone->lru_lock should be not taked at the same time.
>> >>
>> >> I looked over the code since I am out of office.
>> >> I can't find any locking problem zone->lock and zone->lru_lock.
>> >> Do you know any locking order problem?
>> >> Could you explain it with call graph if you don't mind?
>> >>
>> >> I am out of office by tomorrow so I can't reply quickly.
>> >> Sorry for late reponse.
>> >
>> > This is not lock order issue. both zone->lock and zone->lru_lock are
>> > hotpath lock. then, same tame grabbing might cause performance impact.
>> Sorry for late response.
>> Your patch makes get_anon_scan_ratio of zoneinfo stale.
>> What you said about performance impact is effective when VM pressure high.
>> I think stale data is all right normally.
>> But when VM pressure is high and we want to see the information in zoneinfo(
>> this case is what you said), stale data is not a good, I think.
>> If it's not a strong argue, I want to use old get_scan_ratio
>> in get_anon_scan_ratio.
> please looks such function again.
> usally we use recent_rotated/recent_scanned ratio. then following
> decreasing doesn't change any scan-ratio meaning. it only prevent
> stat overflow.

It has a primary role that floating average as well as prevenitng overflow. :)
So, It's important.

> Â Â Â Âif (unlikely(reclaim_stat->recent_scanned[0] > anon / 4)) {
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âspin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âreclaim_stat->recent_scanned[0] /= 2;
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âreclaim_stat->recent_rotated[0] /= 2;
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âspin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> Â Â Â Â}
> So, I don't think current implementation can show stale data.

It can make stale data when high memory pressure happens.

> Thanks.

Moreever, I don't want to make complicate thing(ie, need_update)
than old if it doesn't have some benefit.(I think lru_lock isn't big overhead)

Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at