From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@novell.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Avoid the use of congestion_wait under zone pressure
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:42:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100318174220.GP12388@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100315130935.f8b0a2d7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 01:09:35PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:34:50 +0100
> Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > c) If direct reclaim did reasonable progress in try_to_free but did not
> > get a page, AND there is no write in flight at all then let it try again
> > to free up something.
> > This could be extended by some kind of max retry to avoid some weird
> > looping cases as well.
> >
> > d) Another way might be as easy as letting congestion_wait return
> > immediately if there are no outstanding writes - this would keep the
> > behavior for cases with write and avoid the "running always in full
> > timeout" issue without writes.
>
> They're pretty much equivalent and would work. But there are two
> things I still don't understand:
>
> 1: Why is direct reclaim calling congestion_wait() at all? If no
> writes are going on there's lots of clean pagecache around so reclaim
> should trivially succeed. What's preventing it from doing so?
>
> 2: This is, I think, new behaviour. A regression. What caused it?
>
I looked at this a bit closer using an iozone test very similar to
Christian's. Despite buying a number of disks, I still can't reproduce his
problem but I instrumented congestion_wait counts and times similar to
what he did.
2.6.29-instrument:congestion_waittime 990
2.6.30-instrument:congestion_waittime 2823
2.6.31-instrument:congestion_waittime 193169
2.6.32-instrument:congestion_waittime 228890
2.6.33-instrument:congestion_waittime 785529
2.6.34-rc1-instrument:congestion_waittime 797178
So in the problem window, there was *definite* increases in the time spent
in congestion_wait and the number of times it was called. I'll look
closer at this tomorrow and Monday and see can I pin down what is
happening.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@novell.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Avoid the use of congestion_wait under zone pressure
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:42:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100318174220.GP12388@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100315130935.f8b0a2d7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 01:09:35PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:34:50 +0100
> Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > c) If direct reclaim did reasonable progress in try_to_free but did not
> > get a page, AND there is no write in flight at all then let it try again
> > to free up something.
> > This could be extended by some kind of max retry to avoid some weird
> > looping cases as well.
> >
> > d) Another way might be as easy as letting congestion_wait return
> > immediately if there are no outstanding writes - this would keep the
> > behavior for cases with write and avoid the "running always in full
> > timeout" issue without writes.
>
> They're pretty much equivalent and would work. But there are two
> things I still don't understand:
>
> 1: Why is direct reclaim calling congestion_wait() at all? If no
> writes are going on there's lots of clean pagecache around so reclaim
> should trivially succeed. What's preventing it from doing so?
>
> 2: This is, I think, new behaviour. A regression. What caused it?
>
I looked at this a bit closer using an iozone test very similar to
Christian's. Despite buying a number of disks, I still can't reproduce his
problem but I instrumented congestion_wait counts and times similar to
what he did.
2.6.29-instrument:congestion_waittime 990
2.6.30-instrument:congestion_waittime 2823
2.6.31-instrument:congestion_waittime 193169
2.6.32-instrument:congestion_waittime 228890
2.6.33-instrument:congestion_waittime 785529
2.6.34-rc1-instrument:congestion_waittime 797178
So in the problem window, there was *definite* increases in the time spent
in congestion_wait and the number of times it was called. I'll look
closer at this tomorrow and Monday and see can I pin down what is
happening.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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:[~2010-03-18 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 136+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-08 11:48 [RFC PATCH 0/3] Avoid the use of congestion_wait under zone pressure Mel Gorman
2010-03-08 11:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-08 11:48 ` [PATCH 1/3] page-allocator: Under memory pressure, wait on pressure to relieve instead of congestion Mel Gorman
2010-03-08 11:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 13:35 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 13:35 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 14:17 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 14:17 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 15:03 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 15:03 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 15:42 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-09 15:42 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-09 18:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 18:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-10 2:38 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-10 2:38 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 17:35 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 17:35 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-10 2:35 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-10 2:35 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 15:50 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-03-09 15:50 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-03-09 15:56 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-09 15:56 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-09 16:09 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-03-09 16:09 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-03-09 17:01 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 17:01 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 17:11 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-03-09 17:11 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-03-09 17:30 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 17:30 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-08 11:48 ` [PATCH 2/3] page-allocator: Check zone pressure when batch of pages are freed Mel Gorman
2010-03-08 11:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 9:53 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 9:53 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 10:08 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 10:08 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 10:23 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 10:23 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 10:36 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 10:36 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 11:11 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 11:11 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 11:29 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 11:29 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-08 11:48 ` [PATCH 3/3] vmscan: Put kswapd to sleep on its own waitqueue, not congestion Mel Gorman
2010-03-08 11:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 10:00 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 10:00 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 10:21 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 10:21 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-09 10:32 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-09 10:32 ` Nick Piggin
2010-03-11 23:41 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] Avoid the use of congestion_wait under zone pressure Andrew Morton
2010-03-11 23:41 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-12 6:39 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-12 6:39 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-12 7:05 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-12 7:05 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-12 10:47 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-12 10:47 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-12 12:15 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-12 12:15 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-12 14:37 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-12 14:37 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-15 12:29 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-15 12:29 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-15 14:45 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-15 14:45 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-15 12:34 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-15 12:34 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-15 20:09 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-15 20:09 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-16 10:11 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-16 10:11 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-18 17:42 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2010-03-18 17:42 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-22 23:50 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-22 23:50 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-23 14:35 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-23 14:35 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-03-23 21:35 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-03-23 21:35 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-03-24 11:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-24 11:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-24 12:56 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-03-24 12:56 ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-03-23 22:29 ` Rik van Riel
2010-03-23 22:29 ` Rik van Riel
2010-03-24 14:50 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-24 14:50 ` Mel Gorman
2010-04-19 12:22 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-19 12:22 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-19 21:44 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-04-19 21:44 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-04-20 7:20 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-20 7:20 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-20 8:54 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-20 8:54 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-20 15:32 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-04-20 15:32 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-04-20 17:22 ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-20 17:22 ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-21 4:23 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-21 4:23 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-21 7:35 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-21 7:35 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-21 13:19 ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-21 13:19 ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-22 6:21 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-22 6:21 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-26 10:59 ` Subject: [PATCH][RFC] mm: make working set portion that is protected tunable v2 Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-26 10:59 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-26 11:59 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-04-26 11:59 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-04-26 12:43 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-26 12:43 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-26 14:20 ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-26 14:20 ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-27 14:00 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-27 14:00 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-04-21 9:03 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] Avoid the use of congestion_wait under zone pressure Johannes Weiner
2010-04-21 9:03 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-04-21 13:20 ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-21 13:20 ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-20 14:40 ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-20 14:40 ` Rik van Riel
2010-03-24 2:38 ` Greg KH
2010-03-24 2:38 ` Greg KH
2010-03-24 11:49 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-24 11:49 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-24 13:13 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-03-24 13:13 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-03-12 9:09 ` Mel Gorman
2010-03-12 9:09 ` Mel Gorman
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=20100318174220.GP12388@csn.ul.ie \
--to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=gregkh@novell.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.