From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com (e8.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C6CC1400A8 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 03:23:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e8.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:23:23 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.28]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE7438C8047 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:23:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s2PGNJdx2949550 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:23:19 GMT Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s2PGNIP6014026 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:23:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:23:03 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan To: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: Bug in reclaim logic with exhausted nodes? Message-ID: <20140325162303.GA29977@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20140311210614.GB946@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140313170127.GE22247@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140324230550.GB18778@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, mgorman@suse.de, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, anton@samba.org, rientjes@google.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 25.03.2014 [11:17:57 -0500], Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > Anyone have any ideas here? > > Dont do that? Check on boot to not allow exhausting a node with huge > pages? Gigantic hugepages are allocated by the hypervisor (not the Linux VM), and we don't control where the allocation occurs. Yes, ideally, they would be interleaved to avoid this situation, but I can also see reasons for having them all be from one node so that tasks can be affinitized and get the guarantee of the 16GB pagesize benefit. Thanks, Nish From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (mail-qa0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93C716B003B for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:23:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id j7so769561qaq.10 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com (e9.ny.us.ibm.com. [32.97.182.139]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c3si1757038qan.201.2014.03.25.09.23.22 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:23:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from /spool/local by e9.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:23:22 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.27]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1656E803F for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:23:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s2PGNJdx66125958 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:23:19 GMT Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s2PGNIP2014026 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:23:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:23:03 -0700 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Subject: Re: Bug in reclaim logic with exhausted nodes? Message-ID: <20140325162303.GA29977@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20140311210614.GB946@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140313170127.GE22247@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140324230550.GB18778@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, rientjes@google.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, anton@samba.org, mgorman@suse.de On 25.03.2014 [11:17:57 -0500], Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > Anyone have any ideas here? > > Dont do that? Check on boot to not allow exhausting a node with huge > pages? Gigantic hugepages are allocated by the hypervisor (not the Linux VM), and we don't control where the allocation occurs. Yes, ideally, they would be interleaved to avoid this situation, but I can also see reasons for having them all be from one node so that tasks can be affinitized and get the guarantee of the 16GB pagesize benefit. Thanks, Nish -- 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: email@kvack.org