From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 52B036B003D for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.72]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n2V6UBPJ018877 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:30:12 +0900 Received: from smail (m2 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9130F45DE64 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:30:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.92]) by m2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69A1E45DE51 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:30:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5FCE38009 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:30:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s2.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00931DB804B for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:30:10 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:28:43 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] memcg soft limit (yet another new design) v1 Message-Id: <20090331152843.e1db942b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090331061010.GJ16497@balbir.in.ibm.com> References: <20090327135933.789729cb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090328181100.GB26686@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090328182747.GA8339@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090331085538.2aaa5e2b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090331050055.GF16497@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090331140502.813993cc.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090331061010.GJ16497@balbir.in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" List-ID: On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:40:10 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > > > Swapout for A? For A it is expected, but for B it is not. How many > > > nodes do you have on your machine? Any fake numa nodes? > > > > > Of course, from B. > > > > I asked because I see A have a swapout of 350 MB, which is expected > since it is way over its soft limit. > gcc doesn't use so much RSS..ld ? > > Nothing special boot options. My test was on VMware 2cpus/1.6GB memory. > > > > I wonder why swapout can be 0 on your test. Do you add some extra hooks to > > kswapd ? > > > > Nope.. no special hooks to kswapd. B never enters the RB-Tree and thus > never hits the memcg soft limit reclaim path. kswapd can reclaim from > it, but it grows back quickly. Why grows back ? tasks in B sleeps ? > At some point, memcg soft limit reclaim > hits A and reclaims memory from it, allowing B to run without any > problems. I am talking about the state at the end of the experiment. > Considering LRU rotation (ACTIVE->INACTIVE), pages in group B never goes back to ACTIVE list and can be the first candidates for swap-out via kswapd. Hmm....kswapd doesn't work at all ? (or 1700MB was too much.) Thanks, -Kame -- 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: email@kvack.org