From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.234]) by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8DAUKpM007452 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:30:20 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l8DAUL754436142 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:30:21 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l8DAUK40010674 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:30:20 +1000 Message-ID: <46E9112E.5020505@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:00:06 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: problem with ZONE_MOVABLE. References: <20070913190719.ab6451e7.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20070913190719.ab6451e7.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: containers@lists.osdl.org, "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton List-ID: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > Hi, > > While I'm playing with memory controller of 2.6.23-rc4-mm1, I met following. > > == > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# echo $$ > /opt/mem_control/group_1/tasks > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit > 32768 > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage > 286 > // Memory is limited to 512 GiB. try "dd" 1GiB (page size is 16KB) > > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/tmpfile bs=1024 count=1048576 > Killed > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# ls > Killed > //above are caused by OOM. > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.usage > 32763 > [root@drpq test-2.6.23-rc4-mm1]# cat /opt/mem_control/group_1/memory.limit > 32768 > // fully filled by page cache. no reclaim run. > == > > The reason this happens is because I used kernelcore= boot option, i.e > ZONE_MOVABLE. Seems try_to_free_mem_container_pages() ignores ZONE_MOVABLE. > > Quick fix is attached, but Mel's one-zonelist-pernode patch may change this. > I'll continue to watch. > > Thanks, > -Kame > == > Now, there is ZONE_MOVABLE... > > page cache and user pages are allocated from gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE) > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 9 ++------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak.orig/mm/vmscan.c > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.bak/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -1351,12 +1351,6 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct z > > #ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINER_MEM_CONT > > -#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM > -#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_HIGHMEM > -#else > -#define ZONE_USERPAGES ZONE_NORMAL > -#endif > - > unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_pages(struct mem_container *mem_cont) > { > struct scan_control sc = { > @@ -1371,9 +1365,10 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_mem_container_ > }; > int node; > struct zone **zones; > + int target_zone = gfp_zone(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE); > > for_each_online_node(node) { > - zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[ZONE_USERPAGES].zones; > + zones = NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelists[target_zone].zones; > if (do_try_to_free_pages(zones, sc.gfp_mask, &sc)) > return 1; > } Mel, has sent out a fix (for the single zonelist) that conflicts with this one. Your fix looks correct to me, but it will be over ridden by Mel's fix (once those patches are in -mm). -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL -- 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