From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10 of 16] stop useless vm trashing while we wait the TIF_MEMDIE task to exit
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:39:03 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706111133020.18327@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070611182232.GN7443@v2.random>
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > These are customer reports. 4 hours one and another 2 hours. I can
>
> How long does "ls /proc" take? Can you run top at all on such a
> system (I mean before it reaches the oom point, then it'll hang for
> those 4 hours with the mainline kernel, I know this and that's why I
> worked to fix it and posted 18 patches so far about it).
These are big systems and it would take some time to reproduce these
issues. Thanks for your work. I'd really like to see improvements there.
If you take care of not worsening the local kill path then I am okay with
the rest.
> > certainly get more reports if I ask them for more details. I will get this
> > on your SUSE radar.
>
> If it takes 4 hours for the function out_of_memory to return, please
> report it. If instead as I start to suspect, you're going to show me
> the function out_of_memory called one million times and taking a few
> seconds for each invocation, please test all my fixes before
> reporting, there's a reason I made those changes...
out_of_memory takes about 5-10 minutes each (according to one report). An
OOM storm will then take the machine out for 4 hours. The on site SE can
likely tell you more details in the bugzilla.
Another reporter had been waiting for 2 hours after an oom without any
messages indicating that a single OOM was processed.
> Back to the local-oom: if out_of_memory takes a couple of seconds at
> most as I expect (it'll be the same order of ls /proc, actually ls
> /proc will be a lot slower), killing the current task in the local-oom
> as a performance optimization remains a very dubious argument.
Killing the local process avoids 4 slow scans over a pretty large
tasklist. But I agree that there may be additionial other issues lurking
there fore large systems.
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-11 18:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-08 20:02 [PATCH 00 of 16] OOM related fixes Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:02 ` [PATCH 01 of 16] remove nr_scan_inactive/active Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-10 17:36 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-10 18:17 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-11 14:58 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-26 17:08 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-26 17:55 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-26 19:02 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-28 22:44 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-28 22:57 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-28 23:04 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-28 23:13 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-28 23:16 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-28 23:29 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-29 0:00 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-29 0:19 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-29 0:45 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-29 1:12 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-29 1:20 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-29 1:29 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-28 23:25 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-29 0:12 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-29 13:38 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2007-06-29 14:12 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-29 14:59 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-29 22:39 ` "Noreclaim Infrastructure" [was Re: [PATCH 01 of 16] remove nr_scan_inactive/active] Lee Schermerhorn
2007-06-29 22:42 ` RFC "Noreclaim Infrastructure - patch 1/3 basic infrastructure" Lee Schermerhorn
2007-06-29 22:44 ` RFC "Noreclaim Infrastructure patch 2/3 - noreclaim statistics..." Lee Schermerhorn
2007-06-29 22:49 ` "Noreclaim - client patch 3/3 - treat pages w/ excessively references anon_vma as nonreclaimable" Lee Schermerhorn
2007-06-26 20:37 ` [PATCH 01 of 16] remove nr_scan_inactive/active Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-26 20:57 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-26 22:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 02 of 16] avoid oom deadlock in nfs_create_request Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-10 17:38 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-10 18:27 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 03 of 16] prevent oom deadlocks during read/write operations Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 04 of 16] serialize oom killer Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-09 6:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-09 15:27 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 05 of 16] avoid selecting already killed tasks Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 06 of 16] reduce the probability of an OOM livelock Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 07 of 16] balance_pgdat doesn't return the number of pages freed Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 08 of 16] don't depend on PF_EXITING tasks to go away Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 09 of 16] fallback killing more tasks if tif-memdie doesn't " Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 21:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 10 of 16] stop useless vm trashing while we wait the TIF_MEMDIE task to exit Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 21:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-09 1:59 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-09 3:01 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-09 14:05 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-09 14:38 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-11 16:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-11 16:50 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-11 16:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-11 17:51 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-11 17:56 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-11 18:22 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-11 18:39 ` Christoph Lameter [this message]
2007-06-11 18:58 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-11 19:25 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-11 16:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 11 of 16] the oom schedule timeout isn't needed with the VM_is_OOM logic Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 12 of 16] show mem information only when a task is actually being killed Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 13 of 16] simplify oom heuristics Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 14 of 16] oom select should only take rss into account Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-10 17:17 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-10 17:30 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 15 of 16] limit reclaim if enough pages have been freed Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-10 17:20 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-10 17:32 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-10 17:52 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-11 16:23 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-06-11 16:57 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-08 20:03 ` [PATCH 16 of 16] avoid some lock operation in vm fast path Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-08 21:26 ` [PATCH 00 of 16] OOM related fixes William Lee Irwin III
2007-06-09 14:55 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-12 8:58 ` Petr Tesarik
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=Pine.LNX.4.64.0706111133020.18327@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com \
--to=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--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