From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01 of 16] remove nr_scan_inactive/active
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:58:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <466D6312.2010302@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070610181700.GC7443@v2.random>
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 01:36:46PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>
>>> - else
>>> + nr_inactive = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE) >> priority;
>>> + if (nr_inactive < sc->swap_cluster_max)
>>> nr_inactive = 0;
>> This is a problem.
>>
>> On workloads with lots of anonymous memory, for example
>> running a very large JVM or simply stressing the system
>> with AIM7, the inactive list can be very small.
>>
>> If dozens (or even hundreds) of tasks get into the
>> pageout code simultaneously, they will all spend a lot
>> of time moving pages from the active to the inactive
>> list, but they will not even try to free any of the
>> (few) inactive pages the system has!
>>
>> We have observed systems in stress tests that spent
>> well over 10 minutes in shrink_active_list before
>> the first call to shrink_inactive_list was made.
>>
>> Your code looks like it could exacerbate that situation,
>> by not having zone->nr_scan_inactive increment between
>> calls.
>
> If all tasks spend 10 minutes in shrink_active_list before the first
> call to shrink_inactive_list that could mean you hit the race that I'm
> just trying to fix with this very patch. (i.e. nr_*active going
> totally huge because of the race triggering,
Nope. In this case it spends its time in shrink_active_list
because the active list is 99% of memory (several GB) while
the inactive list is so small that nr_inactive_pages >> priority
is zero.
> Normally if the highest priority passes only calls into
> shrink_active_list that's because the two lists needs rebalancing. But
> I fail to see how it could ever take 10min for the first
> shrink_inactive_list to trigger with my patch applied, while if it
> happens in current vanilla that could be the race triggering, or
> anyway something unrelated is going wrong in the VM.
Yeah, I have no real objection to your patch, but was
just pointing out that it does not fix the big problem
with this code.
--
All Rights Reversed
--
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:[~2007-06-11 14:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-08 20:02 [PATCH 00 of 16] OOM related fixes Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:02 ` [PATCH 01 of 16] remove nr_scan_inactive/active Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-10 17:36 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-10 18:17 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-11 14:58 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2007-06-26 17:08 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-26 17:55 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-26 19:02 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-28 22:44 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-28 22:57 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-28 23:04 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-28 23:13 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-28 23:16 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-28 23:29 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-29 0:00 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-29 0:19 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-29 0:45 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-29 1:12 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-29 1:20 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-29 1:29 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-28 23:25 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-29 0:12 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-29 13:38 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2007-06-29 14:12 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-29 14:59 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-29 22:39 ` "Noreclaim Infrastructure" [was Re: [PATCH 01 of 16] remove nr_scan_inactive/active] Lee Schermerhorn
2007-06-29 22:42 ` RFC "Noreclaim Infrastructure - patch 1/3 basic infrastructure" Lee Schermerhorn
2007-06-29 22:44 ` RFC "Noreclaim Infrastructure patch 2/3 - noreclaim statistics..." Lee Schermerhorn
2007-06-29 22:49 ` "Noreclaim - client patch 3/3 - treat pages w/ excessively references anon_vma as nonreclaimable" Lee Schermerhorn
2007-06-26 20:37 ` [PATCH 01 of 16] remove nr_scan_inactive/active Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-26 20:57 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-26 22:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 02 of 16] avoid oom deadlock in nfs_create_request Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-10 17:38 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-10 18:27 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 03 of 16] prevent oom deadlocks during read/write operations Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 04 of 16] serialize oom killer Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-09 6:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-09 15:27 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 05 of 16] avoid selecting already killed tasks Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 06 of 16] reduce the probability of an OOM livelock Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 07 of 16] balance_pgdat doesn't return the number of pages freed Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 08 of 16] don't depend on PF_EXITING tasks to go away Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 09 of 16] fallback killing more tasks if tif-memdie doesn't " Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 21:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 10 of 16] stop useless vm trashing while we wait the TIF_MEMDIE task to exit Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 21:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-09 1:59 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-09 3:01 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-09 14:05 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-09 14:38 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-11 16:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-11 16:50 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-11 16:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-11 17:51 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-11 17:56 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-11 18:22 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-11 18:39 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-11 18:58 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-11 19:25 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-11 16:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 11 of 16] the oom schedule timeout isn't needed with the VM_is_OOM logic Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 12 of 16] show mem information only when a task is actually being killed Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 13 of 16] simplify oom heuristics Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 14 of 16] oom select should only take rss into account Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-10 17:17 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-10 17:30 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 15 of 16] limit reclaim if enough pages have been freed Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-10 17:20 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-10 17:32 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-10 17:52 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-11 16:23 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-11 16:57 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 16 of 16] avoid some lock operation in vm fast path Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 21:26 ` [PATCH 00 of 16] OOM related fixes William Lee Irwin III
2007-06-09 14:55 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-12 8:58 ` Petr Tesarik
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=466D6312.2010302@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/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