From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, it+linux-mm@molgen.mpg.de
Subject: Re: `page allocation failure: order:0` with ixgbe under high load
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:09:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUJBdjYWLgzgtsTdx5afXL3OEhBbGCo0iNWWq4LWMKPWA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b2fbc169-f02e-92a7-d341-5d40868fe4bd@molgen.mpg.de>
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de> wrote:
> Dear Cong,
>
>
> Thank you for the response.
>
>
> On 08/11/17 19:51, Cong Wang wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
>> wrote:
>>> Or should some parameters be tuned?
>>>
>>> ```
>>> $ more /proc/sys/vm/min*
>>> ::::::::::::::
>>> /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes
>>> ::::::::::::::
>>> 39726
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you try to increase this? Although it depends on your workload,
>> 38M seems too small for a host with 96+G memory.
>
>
> Increasing the value to 128 MB did not get rid of the warning. With 256 MB
> we were unable to reproduce the warning.
Interesting. I wonder if we should just increase the hard-coded cap
(64M) for the default min_free_kbytes, or make it configurable at
compile-time.
>
>>> ::::::::::::::
>>> /proc/sys/vm/min_slab_ratio
>>> ::::::::::::::
>>> 5
>>> ::::::::::::::
>>> /proc/sys/vm/min_unmapped_ratio
>>> ::::::::::::::
>>> 1
>>> ```
>>>
>>> There is quite some information about this on the WWW [1], but some
>>> suggest
>>> that with recent Linux kernels, this shouldn’t happen, as memory get
>>> defragmented.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the other hand, the allocation order is 0 anyway. ;)
>
>
> Right. Coherent(?) memory is not needed for an order of 0.
>
> In our case the memory is mainly occupied by the disk(?) buffer/cache, and
> not the real program. So there is plenty available. Shouldn’t the Linux
> kernel be able to deal with such situations, or is this exactly the use
> case, which the parameter `min_free_kbytes` is for?
Well, for atomic memory allocations, we can't wait for these memory
to drain or reclaim, I think this is why min_free_kbytes exits.
Atomic allocations are heavily used by networking, so the 64M cap
is really not enough for a heavily loaded network server with a
fast NIC.
But I am not at all a MM expert. ;)
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-14 21:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-11 15:36 Paul Menzel
2017-08-11 17:51 ` Cong Wang
2017-08-14 14:18 ` Paul Menzel
2017-08-14 21:09 ` Cong Wang [this message]
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=CAM_iQpUJBdjYWLgzgtsTdx5afXL3OEhBbGCo0iNWWq4LWMKPWA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
--cc=it+linux-mm@molgen.mpg.de \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de \
/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