From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use min of two prio settings in calculating distress for reclaim
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:14:58 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45350F92.7010207@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45350BD3.2060503@google.com>
Martin Bligh wrote:
>> Distress is a per-zone thing. It is precisely that way because there
>> *are*
>> different types of reclaim and you don't want a crippled reclaimer (which
>> might indeed be having trouble reclaiming stuff) from saying the system
>> is in distress.
>>
>> If they are the *only* reclaimer, then OK, distress will go up.
>
>
> So you'd rather the "crippled" reclaimer went and fire the OOM killer
> and shoot someone instead?
No, so I fixed that.
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=408d85441cd5a9bd6bc851d677a10c605ed8db5f
> I don't see why we should penalise them,
> especially as the dirty page throttling is global, and will just kick
> pretty much anyone trying to do an allocation. There's nothing magic
How does dirty page throttling kick anyone trying to do an allocation?
It kicks at page dirtying time.
> about the "crippled" reclaimer as you put it. They're doing absolutely
> nothing wrong, or that they should be punished for. They need a page.
When did I say anything about magic or being punished? They need a page
and they will get it when enough memory gets freed. Pages being reclaimed
by process A may be allocated by process B just fine.
>> I don't agree that the thing to aim for is ensuring everyone is able
>> to reclaim something.
>>
>> And why do you ignore the other side of the coin, where now reclaimers
>> that are easily able to make progress are being made to swap stuff out?
>
>
> Because I'd rather err on the side of moving a few mapped pages from the
> active to the inactive list than cause massive latencies for a page
> allocation that's dropping into direct reclaim and/or going OOM.
We shouldn't go OOM. And there are latencies everywhere and this won't
fix them. A GFP_NOIO allocator can't swap out pages at all, for example.
>> If the GFP_NOFS reclaimer is having a lot of trouble reclaiming, and so
>> you decide to turn on reclaim_mapped, then it is not suddenly going to
>> be able to free those pages.
>
>
> Well it's certainly not going to work if we don't even try. There were
> ZERO pages in the inactive list at this point. The system is totally
> frigging hosed and we're not even trying to reclaim pages because
> we're in deluded-happy-la-la land and we think everything is fine.
So that could be the temp_priority race. If no progress is being made
anywhere, the current logic (minus races) says that prev_prio should
reach 0. Regardless of whether it is GFP_NOFS or whatever.
> This is what happens as we kick down prio levels in one thread:
>
> priority = 12 active_distress = 0 swap_tendency = 0 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 12 active_distress = 0 swap_tendency = 0 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 11 active_distress = 25 swap_tendency = 106 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 10 active_distress = 25 swap_tendency = 106 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 9 active_distress = 0 swap_tendency = 81 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 8 active_distress = 0 swap_tendency = 81 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 7 active_distress = 25 swap_tendency = 106 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 6 active_distress = 25 swap_tendency = 106 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 5 active_distress = 25 swap_tendency = 106 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 4 active_distress = 25 swap_tendency = 106 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 3 active_distress = 25 swap_tendency = 106 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 2 active_distress = 50 swap_tendency = 131 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 1 active_distress = 0 swap_tendency = 81 gfp_mask = d0
> priority = 0 active_distress = 0 swap_tendency = 81 gfp_mask = d0
>
> Notice that distress is not kicking up as priority kicks down (see
> 1 and 0 at the end). Because some other idiot reset prev_priority
> back to 12.
Fine, so fix that race rather than papering over it by using the min
of prev_priority and current priority.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
--
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:[~2006-10-17 17:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-17 1:30 Martin Bligh
2006-10-17 6:33 ` Nick Piggin
2006-10-17 6:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-10-17 6:56 ` Nick Piggin
2006-10-17 13:52 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-10-17 16:43 ` Nick Piggin
2006-10-17 16:58 ` Martin Bligh
2006-10-17 17:14 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2006-10-17 6:50 ` Andrew Morton
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=45350F92.7010207@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mbligh@google.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