Re: fallout of 16K stacks

[Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>]

On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:49:48PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 03:30 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > Since the 16K stack change I noticed a number of problems with
> > my usual stress tests. They have a tendency to bomb out
> > because something cannot fork.
> 
> As in ENOMEM or does something worse happen?

EAGAIN, then the workload stops. For an overnight stress
test that's pretty catastrophic. It may have killed some stuff
with the OOM killer too.

> > - AIM7 on a dual socket socket system now cannot reliably run 
> >> 1000 parallel jobs.
> 
> ... with how much RAM?

This system has 32G

> > - LTP stress + memhog stress in parallel to something else
> > usually doesn't survive the night.
> > 
> > Do we need to strengthen the memory allocator to try
> > harder for 16K?
> 
> Can we even?  The probability of success goes down exponentially in the
> order requested.  Movable pages can help, of course, but still, there is
> a very real cost to this :(

I hope so. In the worst case just try longer.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.

--
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>