From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Vijay Balakrishna <vijayb@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Allen Pais <apais@microsoft.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [[PATCH]] mm: khugepaged: recalculate min_free_kbytes after memory hotplug as expected by khugepaged
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 07:45:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200918054513.GA28827@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7eddcc58-f65f-0be9-60e8-2de013365909@linux.microsoft.com>
On Thu 17-09-20 11:03:56, Vijay Balakrishna wrote:
[...]
> > > The auto tuned value is incorrect post hotplug memory operation, in our use
> > > case memoy hot add occurs very early during boot.
> > Define incorrect. What are the actual values? Have you tried to increase
> > the value manually after the hotplug?
>
> In our case SoC with 8GB memory, system tuned min_free_kbytes
> - first to 22528
> - we perform memory hot add very early in boot
What was the original and after-the-hotplug size of memory and layout?
I suspect that all the hotplugged memory is in Movable zone, right?
> - now min_free_kbytes is 8703
>
> Before looking at code, first I manually restored min_free_kbytes soon after
> boot, reran stress and didn't notice symptoms I mentioned in change log.
This is really surprising and I strongly suspect that an earlier reclaim
just changed the timing enough so that workload has spread the memory
prpessure over a longer time and that might have been enough to recycle
some of the unreclaimable memory due to its natural life time. But this
is a pure speculation. Much more data would be needed to analyze this.
In any case your stress test is oveprovisioning your Normal zone and
increased min_free_kbytes just papers over the sizing problem.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-18 5:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-10 20:47 Vijay Balakrishna
2020-09-10 22:01 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2020-09-10 22:28 ` Pavel Tatashin
2020-09-10 22:56 ` Vijay Balakrishna
2020-09-15 5:04 ` Vijay Balakrishna
2020-09-14 14:33 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-14 16:57 ` Vijay Balakrishna
2020-09-15 8:18 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-15 15:48 ` Vijay Balakrishna
2020-09-16 6:53 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-16 18:28 ` Vijay Balakrishna
2020-09-17 12:12 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-17 18:03 ` Vijay Balakrishna
2020-09-18 5:45 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2020-09-18 15:32 ` Vijay Balakrishna
2020-09-21 7:00 ` Michal Hocko
2020-09-15 18:22 ` Pavel Tatashin
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=20200918054513.GA28827@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apais@microsoft.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=vijayb@linux.microsoft.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