From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: lwoodman@redhat.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, aarcange@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: limit concurrent reclaimers in shrink_zone
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:40:38 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B264E66.9050206@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pr6hya86.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
On 12/14/2009 08:08 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Rik van Riel<riel@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> +max_zone_concurrent_reclaim:
>> +
>> +The number of processes that are allowed to simultaneously reclaim
>> +memory from a particular memory zone.
>> +
>> +With certain workloads, hundreds of processes end up in the page
>> +reclaim code simultaneously. This can cause large slowdowns due
>> +to lock contention, freeing of way too much memory and occasionally
>> +false OOM kills.
>> +
>> +To avoid these problems, only allow a smaller number of processes
>> +to reclaim pages from each memory zone simultaneously.
>> +
>> +The default value is 8.
>
> I don't like the hardcoded number. Is the same number good for a 128MB
> embedded system as for as 1TB server? Seems doubtful.
>
> This should be perhaps scaled with memory size and number of CPUs?
The limit is per _zone_, so the number of concurrent reclaimers
is automatically scaled by the number of memory zones in the
system.
Scaling up the per-zone value as well looks like it could lead
to the kind of lock contention we are aiming to avoid in the
first place.
--
All rights reversed.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: lwoodman@redhat.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, aarcange@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmscan: limit concurrent reclaimers in shrink_zone
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:40:38 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B264E66.9050206@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87pr6hya86.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
On 12/14/2009 08:08 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Rik van Riel<riel@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> +max_zone_concurrent_reclaim:
>> +
>> +The number of processes that are allowed to simultaneously reclaim
>> +memory from a particular memory zone.
>> +
>> +With certain workloads, hundreds of processes end up in the page
>> +reclaim code simultaneously. This can cause large slowdowns due
>> +to lock contention, freeing of way too much memory and occasionally
>> +false OOM kills.
>> +
>> +To avoid these problems, only allow a smaller number of processes
>> +to reclaim pages from each memory zone simultaneously.
>> +
>> +The default value is 8.
>
> I don't like the hardcoded number. Is the same number good for a 128MB
> embedded system as for as 1TB server? Seems doubtful.
>
> This should be perhaps scaled with memory size and number of CPUs?
The limit is per _zone_, so the number of concurrent reclaimers
is automatically scaled by the number of memory zones in the
system.
Scaling up the per-zone value as well looks like it could lead
to the kind of lock contention we are aiming to avoid in the
first place.
--
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:[~2009-12-14 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-10 23:56 [PATCH] vmscan: limit concurrent reclaimers in shrink_zone Rik van Riel
2009-12-10 23:56 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-11 2:03 ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-11 2:03 ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-11 3:19 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-11 3:19 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-11 3:43 ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-11 3:43 ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-11 12:07 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-11 12:07 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-11 13:41 ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-11 13:41 ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-11 13:51 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-11 13:51 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-11 14:08 ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-11 14:08 ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-11 13:48 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-11 13:48 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-11 21:24 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-11 21:24 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-11 11:49 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-11 11:49 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-14 13:08 ` Andi Kleen
2009-12-14 13:08 ` Andi Kleen
2009-12-14 14:23 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-14 14:23 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-14 16:19 ` Andi Kleen
2009-12-14 16:19 ` Andi Kleen
2009-12-14 14:40 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2009-12-14 14:40 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 13:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-12-14 13:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-12-14 14:22 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-14 14:22 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-14 14:52 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-14 14:52 ` 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=4B264E66.9050206@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
/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.