From: David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
To: Sonny Rao <sonny@burdell.org>
Cc: Bharata B Rao <bharata@in.ibm.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: VM balancing issues on 2.6.13: dentry cache not getting shrunk enough
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:14:38 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050915011437.GF2265486@melbourne.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050914224040.GA16627@kevlar.burdell.org>
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 06:40:40PM -0400, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:02:22AM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > Right now our only solution to prevent fragmentation on reclaim is
> > to throw more memory at the machine to prevent reclaim from
> > happening as the workload changes.
>
> That is unfortunate, but interesting because I didn't know if this was
> not a "real-problem" as some have contended. I know SPEC SFS is a
> somewhat questionable workload (really, what isn't though?), so the
> evidence gathered from that didn't seem to convince many people.
>
> What kind of (real) workload are you seeing this on?
Nothing special. Here's an example from a local altix build
server (8p, 12GiB RAM):
linvfs_icache 3376574 3891360 672 24 1 : tunables 54 27 8 : slabdata 162140 162140 0
dentry_cache 2632811 3007186 256 62 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 48503 48503 0
I just copied and untarred some stuff I need to look at (~2GiB
data) and when that completed we now have:
linvfs_icache 590840 2813328 672 24 1 : tunables 54 27 8 : slabdata 117222 117222
dentry_cache 491984 2717708 256 62 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 43834 43834
A few minutes later, with ppl doing normal work (rsync, kernel and
userspace package builds, tar, etc), a bit more had been reclaimed:
linvfs_icache 580589 2797992 672 24 1 : tunables 54 27 8 : slabdata 116583 116583 0
dentry_cache 412009 2418558 256 62 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 39009 39009 0
We started with ~2.9GiB of active slab objects in ~210k pages
(3.3GiB RAM) in these two slabs. We've trimmed their active size
down to ~500MiB, but we still have 155k pages (2.5GiB) allocated to
the slabs.
I've seen much worse than this on build servers with more memory and
larger filesystems, especially after the filesystems have been
crawled by a backup program over night and we've ended up with > 10
million objects in each of these caches.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
R&D Software Enginner
SGI Australian Software Group
--
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:[~2005-09-15 1:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-11 10:57 Theodore Ts'o
2005-09-11 12:00 ` Dipankar Sarma
2005-09-12 3:16 ` Theodore Ts'o
2005-09-12 6:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
2005-09-12 12:53 ` Bharata B Rao
2005-09-13 8:47 ` Bharata B Rao
2005-09-13 21:59 ` David Chinner
2005-09-14 9:01 ` Andi Kleen
2005-09-14 9:16 ` Manfred Spraul
2005-09-14 9:43 ` Andrew Morton
2005-09-14 9:52 ` Dipankar Sarma
2005-09-14 22:44 ` Theodore Ts'o
2005-09-14 9:35 ` Andrew Morton
2005-09-14 13:57 ` Martin J. Bligh
2005-09-14 15:37 ` Sonny Rao
2005-09-15 7:21 ` Helge Hafting
2005-09-14 22:48 ` David Chinner
2005-09-14 15:48 ` Sonny Rao
2005-09-14 22:02 ` David Chinner
2005-09-14 22:40 ` Sonny Rao
2005-09-15 1:14 ` David Chinner [this message]
2005-10-06 6:27 ` [PATCH] dcache: separate slab for directory dentries David Chinner, gnb
2005-10-06 12:28 ` Dave Kleikamp
2005-10-07 3:54 ` Greg Banks
2005-10-07 13:00 ` Dave Kleikamp
2005-09-14 21:34 ` VM balancing issues on 2.6.13: dentry cache not getting shrunk enough Marcelo Tosatti
2005-09-14 21:43 ` Dipankar Sarma
2005-09-15 4:28 ` Bharata B Rao
2005-09-14 23:08 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2005-09-15 9:39 ` Bharata B Rao
2005-09-15 13:29 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2005-10-02 16:32 ` Bharata B Rao
2005-10-02 20:06 ` Marcelo
2005-10-04 13:36 ` shrinkable cache statistics [was Re: VM balancing issues on 2.6.13: dentry cache not getting shrunk enough] Bharata B Rao
2005-10-05 21:25 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2005-10-07 8:12 ` Bharata B Rao
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=20050915011437.GF2265486@melbourne.sgi.com \
--to=dgc@sgi.com \
--cc=bharata@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=sonny@burdell.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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