From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC PATCH] mm: exclude memory less nodes from zone_reclaim
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:03:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1392829383-4125-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140219082313.GB14783@dhcp22.suse.cz>
We had a report about strange OOM killer strikes on a PPC machine
although there was a lot of swap free and a tons of anonymous memory
which could be swapped out. In the end it turned out that the OOM was
a side effect of zone reclaim which wasn't doesn't unmap and swapp out
and so the system was pushed to the OOM. Although this sounds like a bug
somewhere in the kswapd vs. zone reclaim vs. direct reclaim interaction
numactl on the said hardware suggests that the zone reclaim should
have been set in the first place:
node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
node 0 size: 0 MB
node 0 free: 0 MB
node 2 cpus:
node 2 size: 7168 MB
node 2 free: 6019 MB
node distances:
node 0 2
0: 10 40
2: 40 10
So all the CPUs are associated with Node0 which doesn't have any memory
while Node2 contains all the available memory. Node distances cause an
automatic zone_reclaim_mode enabling.
Zone reclaim is intended to keep the allocations local but this doesn't
make any sense on the memory less nodes. So let's exlcude such nodes
for init_zone_allows_reclaim which evaluates zone reclaim behavior and
suitable reclaim_nodes.
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
---
I haven't got to testing this so I am sending this as an RFC for now.
But does this look reasonable?
mm/page_alloc.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 3e953f07edb0..4a44bdc7a8cf 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1855,7 +1855,7 @@ static void __paginginit init_zone_allows_reclaim(int nid)
{
int i;
- for_each_online_node(i)
+ for_each_node_state(i, N_HIGH_MEMORY)
if (node_distance(nid, i) <= RECLAIM_DISTANCE)
node_set(i, NODE_DATA(nid)->reclaim_nodes);
else
@@ -4901,7 +4901,8 @@ void __paginginit free_area_init_node(int nid, unsigned long *zones_size,
pgdat->node_id = nid;
pgdat->node_start_pfn = node_start_pfn;
- init_zone_allows_reclaim(nid);
+ if (node_state(nid, N_HIGH_MEMORY))
+ init_zone_allows_reclaim(nid);
#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP
get_pfn_range_for_nid(nid, &start_pfn, &end_pfn);
#endif
--
1.9.0.rc3
--
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 prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-19 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-18 9:06 ppc: RECLAIM_DISTANCE 10? Michal Hocko
2014-02-18 22:27 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-19 8:16 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-19 8:20 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-19 9:19 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-19 21:45 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-18 23:34 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-18 23:58 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-19 0:40 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-19 1:43 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-19 8:33 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-19 16:24 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-19 16:33 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-20 9:55 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-19 8:23 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-19 16:26 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-19 17:03 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2014-02-19 17:16 ` [RFC PATCH] mm: exclude memory less nodes from zone_reclaim Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-19 17:32 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-19 17:49 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-19 19:40 ` Michal Hocko
2014-02-19 17:53 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-19 21:56 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-19 23:05 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-20 9:50 ` Michal Hocko
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=1392829383-4125-1-git-send-email-mhocko@suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.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