Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: vmscan: kick flushers when we encounter dirty pages on the LRU
From: Mel Gorman
Date: Thu Jan 26 2017 - 13:48:03 EST
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:47:39PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:57:45AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:16:38PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > Memory pressure can put dirty pages at the end of the LRU without
> > > anybody running into dirty limits. Don't start writing individual
> > > pages from kswapd while the flushers might be asleep.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > I don't understand the motivation for checking the wb_reason name. Maybe
> > it was easier to eyeball while reading ftraces. The comment about the
> > flusher not doing its job could also be as simple as the writes took
> > place and clean pages were reclaimed before dirty_expire was reached.
> > Not impossible if there was a light writer combined with a heavy reader
> > or a large number of anonymous faults.
> The name change was only because try_to_free_pages() wasn't the only
> function doing this flusher wakeup anymore.
Ah, ok. I was thinking of it in terms of "we are trying to free pages"
and not the specific name of the direct reclaim function.
> I associate that name with
> direct reclaim rather than reclaim in general, so I figured this makes
> more sense. No strong feelings either way, but I doubt this will break
> anything in userspace.
Doubtful, maybe some tracing analysis scripts but they routinely have
> The comment on dirty expiration is a good point. Let's add this to the
> list of reasons why reclaim might run into dirty data. Fixlet below.