From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
yanmin.zhang@intel.com, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
linuxram@us.ibm.com
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] [RFC] Functional fix to zone_reclaim() and bring behaviour more in line with expectations V2
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:01:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1244566904-31470-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
Changelog since V1
o Rebase to mmotm
o Add various acks
o Documentation and patch leader fixes
o Use Kosaki's method for calculating the number of unmapped pages
o Consider the zone full in more situations than all pages being unreclaimable
o Add a counter to detect when scan-avoidance heuristics are failing
o Handle jiffie wraps for zone_reclaim_interval
o Move zone_reclaim_interval to the end of the set with the view to dropping
it. If Kosaki's calculation is accurate, then the problem being dealt with
should also be addressed
A bug was brought to my attention against a distro kernel but it affects
mainline and I believe problems like this have been reported in various guises
on the mailing lists although I don't have specific examples at the moment.
The problem is that malloc() stalled for a long time (minutes in some
cases) if a large tmpfs mount was occupying a large percentage of memory
overall. The pages did not get cleaned or reclaimed by zone_reclaim()
because the zone_reclaim_mode was unsuitable, but the lists are uselessly
scanned frequencly making the CPU spin at near 100%.
This patchset intends to address that bug and bring the behaviour of
zone_reclaim() more in line with expectations. It is based on top of mmotm
and takes advantage of Kosaki's work with respect to zone_reclaim().
Patch 1 alters the heuristics that zone_reclaim() uses to determine if the
scan should go ahead. Currently, it is basically assuming
zone_reclaim_mode is 1 and historically it could not deal with
tmpfs pages at all. This fixes up the heuristic so that the scan
is more likely to be correctly avoided.
Patch 2 notes that zone_reclaim() returning a failure automatically means
the zone is marked full. This is not always true. It could have
failed because the GFP mask or zone_reclaim_mode were unsuitable.
Patch 3 introduces a counter zreclaim_failed that will increment each
time the zone_reclaim scan-avoidance heuristics fail. If that
counter is rapidly increasing, then zone_reclaim_mode should be
set to 0 as a temporarily resolution and a bug reported.
Patch 4 reintroduces zone_reclaim_interval to catch the situation where
zone_reclaim() cannot tell in advance that the scan is a waste of
time. This is a brute force catch-all. I've asked the bug reporter
to test with just patch 1. If that works, then this patch will be
dropped and patch 3 will be enough to tell us if/when the situation
occured again. Even with this patch applied, the counter will
increase slowly so it's still possible to detect the problem.
Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt | 15 +++++++
include/linux/mmzone.h | 9 ++++
include/linux/swap.h | 1 +
include/linux/vmstat.h | 3 +
kernel/sysctl.c | 9 ++++
mm/internal.h | 4 ++
mm/page_alloc.c | 26 ++++++++++--
mm/vmscan.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
mm/vmstat.c | 3 +
9 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next reply other threads:[~2009-06-09 16:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-09 17:01 Mel Gorman [this message]
2009-06-09 17:01 ` [PATCH 1/4] Properly account for the number of page cache pages zone_reclaim() can reclaim Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 18:15 ` Rik van Riel
2009-06-10 1:19 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-10 7:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-10 10:31 ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-10 11:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-10 13:41 ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-10 22:42 ` Ram Pai
2009-06-11 13:52 ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-11 1:29 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-11 3:26 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-09 17:01 ` [PATCH 2/4] Do not unconditionally treat zones that fail zone_reclaim() as full Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 18:11 ` Rik van Riel
2009-06-10 1:52 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-09 17:01 ` [PATCH 3/4] Count the number of times zone_reclaim() scans and fails Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 18:56 ` Rik van Riel
2009-06-10 1:47 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-10 10:36 ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-10 2:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-10 10:40 ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 17:01 ` [PATCH 4/4] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when zone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA Mel Gorman
2009-06-10 1:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-10 5:54 ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-10 10:48 ` Mel Gorman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1244566904-31470-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie \
--to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=yanmin.zhang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox