From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] vmscan don't isolate too many pages in a zone
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 16:01:26 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090709121647.2395.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090709030731.GA17097@localhost>
Hi
> I tried the semaphore based concurrent direct reclaim throttling, and
> get these numbers. The run time is normal 30s, but can sometimes go up
> by many folds. It seems that there are more hidden problems..
Hmm....
I think I and you have different priority list. May I explain why Rik
and decide to use half of LRU pages?
the system have 4GB (=1M pages) memory. my patch allow 1M/2/32=16384
threads. I agree this is very large and inefficient. However IOW
this is very conservative.
I believe it don't makes too strong restriction problem.
In the other hand, your patch's concurrent restriction is small constant
value (=32).
it can be more efficient and it also can makes regression. IOW it is more
aggressive approach.
e.g.
if the system have >100 CPU, my patch can get enough much reclaimer but
your patch makes tons idle cpus.
And, To recall original issue tearch us this is rarely and a bit insane
workload issue.
Then, I priotize to
1. prevent unnecessary OOM
2. no regression to typical workload
3. msgctl11 performance
IOW, I don't think msgctl11 performance is so important.
May I ask why do you think msgctl11 performance is so important?
>
> --- linux.orig/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ linux/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1042,6 +1042,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis
> unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0;
> struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = get_reclaim_stat(zone, sc);
> int lumpy_reclaim = 0;
> + static struct semaphore direct_reclaim_sem = __SEMAPHORE_INITIALIZER(direct_reclaim_sem, 32);
>
> /*
> * If we need a large contiguous chunk of memory, or have
> @@ -1057,6 +1058,9 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis
>
> pagevec_init(&pvec, 1);
>
> + if (!current_is_kswapd())
> + down(&direct_reclaim_sem);
> +
> lru_add_drain();
> spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> do {
> @@ -1173,6 +1177,10 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis
> done:
> local_irq_enable();
> pagevec_release(&pvec);
> +
> + if (!current_is_kswapd())
> + up(&direct_reclaim_sem);
> +
> return nr_reclaimed;
> }
--
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:[~2009-07-09 6:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-07 9:40 [RFC PATCH 0/2] fix unnecessary accidental OOM problem on concurrent reclaim KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-07 9:47 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] vmscan don't isolate too many pages KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-07 13:23 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-07 18:59 ` Rik van Riel
2009-07-08 3:19 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-09 1:51 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] vmscan don't isolate too many pages in a zone Rik van Riel
2009-07-09 2:47 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-09 3:07 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-09 7:01 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2009-07-09 8:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-09 11:07 ` Minchan Kim
2009-07-09 6:39 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-07 23:39 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] vmscan don't isolate too many pages Minchan Kim
2009-07-09 3:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-07 9:48 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] Don't continue reclaim if the system have plenty free memory KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-07 13:20 ` Minchan Kim
2009-07-09 5:08 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-07-09 10:58 ` Minchan Kim
2009-07-13 0:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
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=20090709121647.2395.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.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