From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sd0109e.au.ibm.com (d23rh905.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.225]) by e23smtp03.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8DFuXTX031447 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:56:33 +1000 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (d23av01.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.96]) by sd0109e.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.5) with ESMTP id l8DFvbRs058018 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:57:37 +1000 Received: from d23av01.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av01.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l8DFrk9t031628 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:53:46 +1000 Message-ID: <46E95CFA.6090300@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:23:30 +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> <20070913131117.GG22778@skynet.ie> In-Reply-To: <20070913131117.GG22778@skynet.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Mel Gorman Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , containers@lists.osdl.org, "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton List-ID: Mel Gorman wrote: > On (13/09/07 19:07), KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki didst pronounce: >> 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. >> > > You are right on both counts. This is a valid fix but > one-zonelist-pernode overwrites it. Specifically the code in question > with one-zonelist will look like; > > for_each_online_node(node) { > zonelist = &NODE_DATA(node)->node_zonelist; > if (do_try_to_free_pages(zonelist, sc.gfp_mask, &sc)) > return 1; > } > > We should be careful that this problem does not get forgotten about if > one-zonelist gets delayed for a long period of time. Have the fix at the > end of the container patchset where it can be easily dropped if > one-zonelist is merged. > > Thanks Yes, I second that. So, we should get KAMEZAWA's fix in. -- 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