linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>, Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: check zone->all_unreclaimable in all_unreclaimable()
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:58:29 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=q=YMrT7Uta+wGm47VZ5N6meybAQTgjKGsDWFw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110309143704.194e8ee1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>

Hi Kame,

Sorry for late response.
I had a time to test this issue shortly because these day I am very busy.
This issue was interesting to me.
So I hope taking a time for enough testing when I have a time.
I should find out root cause of livelock.

I will answer your comment after it. :)
Thanks!

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:37 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:45:51 +0900
> Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 02:07:59 +0900
>> > Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Any alternative proposals?  We should get the livelock fixed if possible..
>> >
>>
>> And we should avoid unnecessary OOM kill if possible.
>>
>> I think the problem is caused by (zone->pages_scanned <
>> zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) * 6). I am not sure (* 6) is a best. It
>> would be rather big on recent big DRAM machines.
>>
>
> It means 3 times full-scan from the highest priority to the lowest
> and cannot freed any pages. I think big memory machine tend to have
> more cpus, so don't think it's big.
>
>> I think it is a trade-off between latency and OOM kill.
>> If we decrease the magic value, maybe we should prevent the almost
>> livelock but happens unnecessary OOM kill.
>>
>
> Hmm, should I support a sacrifice feature 'some signal(SIGINT?) will be sent by
> the kernel when it detects system memory is in short' in cgroup ?
> (For example, if full LRU scan is done in a zone, notifier
>  works and SIGINT will be sent.)
>
>> And I think zone_reclaimable not fair.
>> For example, too many scanning makes reclaimable state to
>> unreclaimable state. Maybe it takes a very long time. But just some
>> page free makes unreclaimable state to reclaimabe with very easy. So
>> we need much painful reclaiming for changing reclaimable state with
>> unreclaimabe state. it would affect latency very much.
>>
>> Maybe we need more smart zone_reclaimabe which is adaptive with memory pressure.
>>
> I agree.
>
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>
>



-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-03-10  6:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-03-05 11:44 Andrey Vagin
2011-03-05 15:20 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-05 15:34   ` Andrew Vagin
2011-03-05 15:53     ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-05 16:41       ` Andrew Vagin
2011-03-05 17:07         ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-07 21:58           ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-07 23:45             ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-09  5:37               ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-09  5:43                 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-10  6:58                 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2011-03-10 23:58                   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-11  0:18                     ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-11  6:08                       ` avagin
2011-03-14  1:03                         ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-08  0:44             ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-08  3:06               ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-08 19:02                 ` avagin
2011-03-09  5:52                   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-09  6:17                   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-10 14:08                     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-08  8:12               ` Andrew Vagin
2011-03-09  6:06                 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-05-04  1:38     ` CAI Qian
2011-05-09  6:54       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-09  8:47         ` CAI Qian
2011-05-09  9:19           ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10  8:11             ` OOM Killer don't works at all if the system have >gigabytes memory (was Re: [PATCH] mm: check zone->all_unreclaimable in all_unreclaimable()) KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10  8:14               ` [PATCH 1/4] oom: improve dump_tasks() show items KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 23:29                 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13 10:14                   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10  8:15               ` [PATCH 2/4] oom: kill younger process first KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 23:31                 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13 10:15                   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-11 23:33                 ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12  0:52                 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-05-12  1:30                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12  1:53                     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-05-12  2:23                       ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12  3:39                         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-05-12  4:17                           ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12 14:38                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-05-13 10:18                   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10  8:15               ` [PATCH 3/4] oom: oom-killer don't use permillage of system-ram internally KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 23:40                 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13 10:30                   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10  8:16               ` [PATCH 4/4] oom: don't kill random process KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-10 23:41                 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-10 23:22               ` OOM Killer don't works at all if the system have >gigabytes memory (was Re: [PATCH] mm: check zone->all_unreclaimable in all_unreclaimable()) David Rientjes
2011-05-11  2:30               ` CAI Qian
2011-05-11 20:34                 ` David Rientjes
2011-05-12  0:13                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-12 19:38                     ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13  4:16                       ` Minchan Kim
2011-05-13 11:04                         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-05-16 20:42                           ` David Rientjes
2011-05-13  6:53                   ` CAI Qian
2011-05-16 20:46                     ` David Rientjes

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='AANLkTi=q=YMrT7Uta+wGm47VZ5N6meybAQTgjKGsDWFw@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=avagin@gmail.com \
    --cc=avagin@openvz.org \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    /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