From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
david@gibson.dropbear.id.au, hugh@veritas.net
Subject: Hugepages_Rsvd goes huge in 2.6.20-rc7
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:19:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070206001903.GP7953@us.ibm.com> (raw)
Hi all,
So, here's the current state of the hugepages portion of my
/proc/meminfo (x86_64, 2.6.20-rc7, will test with 2.6.20 shortly, but
AFAICS, there haven't been many changes to hugepage code between the
two):
HugePages_Total: 100
HugePages_Free: 100
HugePages_Rsvd: 18446744073709551615
Hugepagesize: 2048 kB
That's not good :)
Context: I'm currently working on some patches for libhugetlbfs which
should ultimately help us reduce our hugepage usage when remapping
segments so they are backed by hugepages. The current algorithm maps in
hugepage file as MAP_SHARED, copies over the segment data, then unmaps
the file. It then unmaps the program's segments, and maps in the same
hugepage file MAP_PRIVATE, so that we take COW faults. Now, the problem
is, for writable segments (data) the COW fault instatiates a new
hugepage, but the original MAP_SHARED hugepage stays resident in the
page cache. So, for a program that could survive (after the initial
remapping algorithm) with only 2 hugepages in use, uses 3 hugepages
instead.
To work around this, I've modified the algorithm to prefault in the
writable segment in the remapping code (via a one-byte read and write).
Then, I issue a posix_fadvise(segment_fd, 0, 0, FADV_DONTNEED), to try
and drop the shared hugepage from the page cache. With a small dummy
relinked app (that just sleeps), this does reduce our run-time hugepage
cost from 3 to 2. But, I'm noticing that libhugetlbfs' `make func`
utility, which tests libhugetlbfs' functionality only, every so often
leads to a lot of "VM killing process ...". This only appears to happen
to a particular testcase (xBDT.linkshare, which remaps the BSS, data and
text segments and tries to share the text segments between 2 processes),
but when it does, it happens for a while (that is, if I try and run that
particular test manually, it keeps getting killed) and /proc/meminfo
reports a garbage value for HugePages_Rsvd like I listed above. If I
rerun `make func`, sometimes the problem goes away (Rsvd returns to a
sane value, as well...).
I've added Hugh & David to the Cc, because they discussed a similar
problem a few months back. Maybe there is still a race somewhere?
I'm willing to test any possible fixes, and I'll work on making this
more easily reproducible (although it seems to happen pretty regularly
here) with a simpler test.
Thanks,
Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
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 reply other threads:[~2007-02-06 0:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-02-06 0:19 Nishanth Aravamudan [this message]
2007-02-06 0:25 ` Hugepages_Rsvd goes huge in 2.6.20-rc7 Nishanth Aravamudan
2007-02-06 0:55 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2007-02-06 1:24 ` David Gibson
2007-02-07 1:05 ` [Libhugetlbfs-devel] " Nishanth Aravamudan
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=20070206001903.GP7953@us.ibm.com \
--to=nacc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=hugh@veritas.net \
--cc=libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).