From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC] Bogus zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] for big systems
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:33:32 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54E3A59C.7090202@intel.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1198 bytes --]
I've got a 2TB 8-node system (256GB per NUMA node) that's behaving a bit
strangely (OOMs with GB of free memory).
Its watermarks look wonky, with a min watermark of 0 pages for DMA and
only 11 pages for DMA32:
> Node 0 DMA free:7428kB min:0kB low:0kB high:0kB ...
> Node 0 DMA32 free:1024084kB min:44kB low:52kB high:64kB ... present:1941936kB managed:1862456kB
> Node 0 Normal free:4808kB min:6348kB low:7932kB high:9520kB ... present:266338304kB managed:262138972kB
This looks to be caused by us trying to evenly distribute the
min_free_kbytes value across the zones, but with such a huge size
imbalance (16MB zone vs 2TB system), 1/131072th of the default
min_free_kbytes ends up <1 page.
Should we be setting up some absolute floors on the watermarks, like the
attached patch?
BTW, it seems to be this code:
> static void __setup_per_zone_wmarks(void)
> {
> unsigned long pages_min = min_free_kbytes >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 10);
...
> for_each_zone(zone) {
> u64 tmp;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
> tmp = (u64)pages_min * zone->managed_pages;
> do_div(tmp, lowmem_pages);
[-- Attachment #2: mm-absolute-floors-for-watermarks.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1170 bytes --]
---
b/mm/page_alloc.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN mm/page_alloc.c~mm-absolute-floors-for-watermarks mm/page_alloc.c
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c~mm-absolute-floors-for-watermarks 2015-02-17 11:19:48.470054562 -0800
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c 2015-02-17 11:26:48.164983632 -0800
@@ -5739,6 +5739,14 @@ static void __setup_per_zone_wmarks(void
}
for_each_zone(zone) {
+ /*
+ * For very small zones (think 16MB ZONE_DMA on a 4TB system),
+ * proportionally distributing pages_min can lean to
+ * watermarks of 0. Give it an absolute floor so we always
+ * have at least a minimal watermark based on the size of the
+ * *zone*, not the system.
+ */
+ unsigned long absolute_min = zone->managed_pages / 256;
u64 tmp;
spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
@@ -5766,7 +5774,8 @@ static void __setup_per_zone_wmarks(void
*/
zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = tmp;
}
-
+ zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = max(zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN],
+ absolute_min);
zone->watermark[WMARK_LOW] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 2);
zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + (tmp >> 1);
_
reply other threads:[~2015-02-17 20:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=54E3A59C.7090202@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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