From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmstat: retrieve more accurate vmstat value
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:43:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5655BB0A.90000@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151125120021.GA27342@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 11/25/2015 01:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 24-11-15 15:22:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> When I tested compaction in low memory condition, I found that
>> my benchmark is stuck in congestion_wait() at shrink_inactive_list().
>> This stuck last for 1 sec and after then it can escape. More investigation
>> shows that it is due to stale vmstat value. vmstat is updated every 1 sec
>> so it is stuck for 1 sec.
>
> Wouldn't it be sufficient to use zone_page_state_snapshot in
> too_many_isolated?
That sounds better than the ad-hoc half-solution, yeah.
I don't know how performance sensitive the callers are, but maybe it could do a
non-snapshot check first, and only repeat with _snapshot when it's about to wait
(the result is true), just to make sure?
OTOH, how big issue is this? I suspect the system has been genuinely
too_many_isolated(), or very close, in order to hit the condition in the first
place, and the inaccuracy just delays the recovery a bit?
--
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>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmstat: retrieve more accurate vmstat value
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:43:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5655BB0A.90000@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151125120021.GA27342@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 11/25/2015 01:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 24-11-15 15:22:03, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> When I tested compaction in low memory condition, I found that
>> my benchmark is stuck in congestion_wait() at shrink_inactive_list().
>> This stuck last for 1 sec and after then it can escape. More investigation
>> shows that it is due to stale vmstat value. vmstat is updated every 1 sec
>> so it is stuck for 1 sec.
>
> Wouldn't it be sufficient to use zone_page_state_snapshot in
> too_many_isolated?
That sounds better than the ad-hoc half-solution, yeah.
I don't know how performance sensitive the callers are, but maybe it could do a
non-snapshot check first, and only repeat with _snapshot when it's about to wait
(the result is true), just to make sure?
OTOH, how big issue is this? I suspect the system has been genuinely
too_many_isolated(), or very close, in order to hit the condition in the first
place, and the inaccuracy just delays the recovery a bit?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-25 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-24 6:22 [PATCH] mm/vmstat: retrieve more accurate vmstat value Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-24 6:22 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-24 15:36 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-24 15:36 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-25 2:57 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-25 2:57 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-25 16:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-25 16:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-25 18:03 ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-25 18:03 ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-25 18:26 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-25 18:26 ` Christoph Lameter
2015-11-26 1:52 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-26 1:52 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-12-03 4:14 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-12-03 4:14 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-01-27 23:13 ` David Rientjes
2016-01-27 23:13 ` David Rientjes
2016-01-28 5:08 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-01-28 5:08 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-25 12:00 ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-25 12:00 ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-25 13:43 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2015-11-25 13:43 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-11-25 13:47 ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-25 13:47 ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-26 1:56 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-26 1:56 ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-11-26 5:03 ` vinayak menon
2015-11-26 5:03 ` vinayak menon
2015-11-26 15:03 ` Michal Hocko
2015-11-26 15:03 ` Michal Hocko
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=5655BB0A.90000@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=js1304@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.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.