From: Chris Webb <chris@arachsys.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Subject: Re: Over-eager swapping
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:20:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100819102055.GK2370@arachsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008181112510.6294@router.home>
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Chris Webb wrote:
>
> > > != 0. And even then, zone reclaim should only reclaim file pages, not
> > > anon. In theory...
> >
> > Hi. This is zero on all our machines:
> >
> > # sysctl vm.zone_reclaim_mode
> > vm.zone_reclaim_mode = 0
>
> Set it to 1.
I tried this on a handful of the problem hosts before re-adding their swap.
One of them now runs without dipping into swap. The other three I tried had
the same behaviour of sitting at zero swap usage for a while, before
suddenly spiralling up with %wait going through the roof. I had to swapoff
on them to bring them back into a sane state. So it looks like it helps a
bit, but doesn't cure the problem.
I could definitely believe an explanation that we're swapping in preference
to allocating remote zone pages somehow, given the imbalance in free memory
between the nodes which we saw. However, I read the documentation for
vm.zone_reclaim_mode, which suggests to me that when it was set to zero,
pages from remote zones should be allocated automatically in preference to
swap given that zone_reclaim_mode & 4 == 0?
Cheers,
Chris.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chris Webb <chris@arachsys.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Subject: Re: Over-eager swapping
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:20:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100819102055.GK2370@arachsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008181112510.6294@router.home>
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Chris Webb wrote:
>
> > > != 0. And even then, zone reclaim should only reclaim file pages, not
> > > anon. In theory...
> >
> > Hi. This is zero on all our machines:
> >
> > # sysctl vm.zone_reclaim_mode
> > vm.zone_reclaim_mode = 0
>
> Set it to 1.
I tried this on a handful of the problem hosts before re-adding their swap.
One of them now runs without dipping into swap. The other three I tried had
the same behaviour of sitting at zero swap usage for a while, before
suddenly spiralling up with %wait going through the roof. I had to swapoff
on them to bring them back into a sane state. So it looks like it helps a
bit, but doesn't cure the problem.
I could definitely believe an explanation that we're swapping in preference
to allocating remote zone pages somehow, given the imbalance in free memory
between the nodes which we saw. However, I read the documentation for
vm.zone_reclaim_mode, which suggests to me that when it was set to zero,
pages from remote zones should be allocated automatically in preference to
swap given that zone_reclaim_mode & 4 == 0?
Cheers,
Chris.
--
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:[~2010-08-19 10:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-02 12:47 Over-eager swapping Chris Webb
2010-08-02 12:47 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-02 23:55 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-02 23:55 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-03 3:31 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-03 3:31 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-03 4:09 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-03 4:09 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-03 4:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-03 4:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-03 4:47 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-03 4:47 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-03 6:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-03 6:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-03 21:49 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-03 21:49 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-04 2:21 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-04 2:21 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-04 3:10 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-04 3:24 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-04 3:24 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-04 9:58 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-04 9:58 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-04 11:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-04 11:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-04 12:04 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-04 12:04 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-18 14:38 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-18 14:38 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-18 14:46 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-18 14:46 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-18 15:21 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-18 15:21 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-18 15:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-08-18 15:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-08-18 16:20 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-18 16:20 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-18 15:57 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2010-08-18 15:57 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2010-08-18 15:58 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-18 15:58 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-18 16:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-08-18 16:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-08-18 16:32 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-18 16:32 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-19 5:16 ` Balbir Singh
2010-08-19 5:16 ` Balbir Singh
2010-08-19 10:20 ` Chris Webb [this message]
2010-08-19 10:20 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-19 19:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-08-19 19:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-08-18 16:13 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-18 16:13 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-18 16:31 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-18 16:31 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-19 5:13 ` Balbir Singh
2010-08-19 5:13 ` Balbir Singh
2010-08-18 16:45 ` Balbir Singh
2010-08-18 16:45 ` Balbir Singh
2010-08-19 9:25 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-19 9:25 ` Chris Webb
2010-08-19 15:13 ` Balbir Singh
2010-08-19 15:13 ` Balbir Singh
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-04-23 9:27 Richard Davies
2012-04-23 9:27 ` Richard Davies
2012-04-23 12:07 ` Zdenek Kaspar
2012-04-23 12:07 ` Zdenek Kaspar
2012-04-23 17:19 ` Dave Hansen
2012-04-23 17:19 ` Dave Hansen
2012-04-24 0:35 ` Minchan Kim
2012-04-24 0:35 ` Minchan Kim
2012-04-24 11:16 ` Peter Lieven
2012-04-24 11:16 ` Peter Lieven
2012-04-25 14:41 ` Rik van Riel
2012-04-25 14:41 ` Rik van Riel
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=20100819102055.GK2370@arachsys.com \
--to=chris@arachsys.com \
--cc=Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
/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.