Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: add sysctl knobs for protecting the working set
From: Oleksandr Natalenko <hidden>
Date: 2021-12-03 14:01:22
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml
Hello. On čtvrtek 2. prosince 2021 22:58:24 CET Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 21:05:01 +0300 ValdikSS [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
This patchset is surprisingly effective and very useful for low-end PC with slow HDD, single-board ARM boards with slow storage, cheap Android smartphones with limited amount of memory. It almost completely prevents thrashing condition and aids in fast OOM killer invocation. The similar file-locking patch is used in ChromeOS for nearly 10 years but not on stock Linux or Android. It would be very beneficial for lower-performance Android phones, SBCs, old PCs and other devices. With this patch, combined with zram, I'm able to run the following software on an old office PC from 2007 with __only 2GB of RAM__ simultaneously: * Firefox with 37 active tabs (all data in RAM, no tab unloading) * Discord * Skype * LibreOffice with the document opened * Two PDF files (14 and 47 megabytes in size) And the PC doesn't crawl like a snail, even with 2+ GB in zram! Without the patch, this PC is barely usable. Please watch the video: https://notes.valdikss.org.ru/linux-for-old-pc-from-2007/en/This is quite a condemnation of the current VM. It shouldn't crawl like a snail. The patch simply sets hard limits on page reclaim's malfunctioning. I'd prefer that reclaim not malfunction :( That being said, I can see that a blunt instrument like this would be useful. I don't think that the limits should be "N bytes on the current node". Nodes can have different amounts of memory so I expect it should scale the hard limits on a per-node basis. And of course, the various zones have different size as well.
Probably not. To my understanding, the limits should roughly correspond to what you see after executing this:
$ echo 1 | sudo tee /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; grep -F 'Active(file)' /proc/
meminfo
IMO, this has nothing to do with the size of the node.
We do already have a lot of sysctls for controlling these sort of things. Was much work put into attempting to utilize the existing sysctls to overcome these issues?
-- Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)