From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01 of 16] remove nr_scan_inactive/active
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:58:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <466D6312.2010302@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070610181700.GC7443@v2.random>
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 01:36:46PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>
>>> - else
>>> + nr_inactive = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE) >> priority;
>>> + if (nr_inactive < sc->swap_cluster_max)
>>> nr_inactive = 0;
>> This is a problem.
>>
>> On workloads with lots of anonymous memory, for example
>> running a very large JVM or simply stressing the system
>> with AIM7, the inactive list can be very small.
>>
>> If dozens (or even hundreds) of tasks get into the
>> pageout code simultaneously, they will all spend a lot
>> of time moving pages from the active to the inactive
>> list, but they will not even try to free any of the
>> (few) inactive pages the system has!
>>
>> We have observed systems in stress tests that spent
>> well over 10 minutes in shrink_active_list before
>> the first call to shrink_inactive_list was made.
>>
>> Your code looks like it could exacerbate that situation,
>> by not having zone->nr_scan_inactive increment between
>> calls.
>
> If all tasks spend 10 minutes in shrink_active_list before the first
> call to shrink_inactive_list that could mean you hit the race that I'm
> just trying to fix with this very patch. (i.e. nr_*active going
> totally huge because of the race triggering,
Nope. In this case it spends its time in shrink_active_list
because the active list is 99% of memory (several GB) while
the inactive list is so small that nr_inactive_pages >> priority
is zero.
> Normally if the highest priority passes only calls into
> shrink_active_list that's because the two lists needs rebalancing. But
> I fail to see how it could ever take 10min for the first
> shrink_inactive_list to trigger with my patch applied, while if it
> happens in current vanilla that could be the race triggering, or
> anyway something unrelated is going wrong in the VM.
Yeah, I have no real objection to your patch, but was
just pointing out that it does not fix the big problem
with this code.
--
All Rights Reversed
--
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 14:58 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 [this message]
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
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=466D6312.2010302@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.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 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.