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 e23smtp02.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8F6EYN6013554 for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:14:34 +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 l8F6I6vq263104 for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:18:07 +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 l8F6EG7b011544 for ; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:14:16 +1000 Message-ID: <46EB782C.1030605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:44:04 +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> <46E9112E.5020505@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070914173835.89b046a8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20070914173835.89b046a8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: containers@lists.osdl.org, "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:00:06 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > >> 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). >> > > "mel's fix" is rather too imprecise a term for me to make head or tail of this. > > Oh well, the patch basically applied, so I whacked it in there, designated > as to be folded into memory-controller-make-charging-gfp-mask-aware.patch I agree that this fix is required and may be over-written by Mel'ls patches in the future, but for now this is the correct fix. Thanks for applying it. -- 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