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 8D6F46B004F for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:04:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:04:44 +0200 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already (v3) Message-ID: <20090729150443.GB1534@ucw.cz> References: <20090715223854.7548740a@bree.surriel.com> <20090715194820.237a4d77.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4A5E9A33.3030704@redhat.com> <20090715202114.789d36f7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4A5E9E4E.5000308@redhat.com> <20090715203854.336de2d5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090715235318.6d2f5247@bree.surriel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090715235318.6d2f5247@bree.surriel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Rik van Riel Cc: Andrew Morton , KOSAKI Motohiro , LKML , linux-mm , Wu Fengguang List-ID: On Wed 2009-07-15 23:53:18, Rik van Riel wrote: > When way too many processes go into direct reclaim, it is possible > for all of the pages to be taken off the LRU. One result of this > is that the next process in the page reclaim code thinks there are > no reclaimable pages left and triggers an out of memory kill. > > One solution to this problem is to never let so many processes into > the page reclaim path that the entire LRU is emptied. Limiting the > system to only having half of each inactive list isolated for > reclaim should be safe. Is this still racy? Like on 100cpu machine, with LRU size of 50...? -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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