linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:24:23 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110323082423.GA1969@barrios-desktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110323161354.1AD2.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:13:21PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Okay. I got it.
> > 
> > The problem is following as.
> > By the race the free_pcppages_bulk and balance_pgdat, it is possible
> > zone->all_unreclaimable = 1 and zone->pages_scanned = 0.
> > DMA zone have few LRU pages and in case of no-swap and big memory
> > pressure, there could be a just a page in inactive file list like your
> > example. (anon lru pages isn't important in case of non-swap system)
> > In such case, shrink_zones doesn't scan the page at all until priority
> > become 0 as get_scan_count does scan >>= priority(it's mostly zero).
> 
> Nope.
> 
>                         if (zone->all_unreclaimable && priority != DEF_PRIORITY)
>                                 continue;
> 
> This tow lines mean, all_unreclaimable prevent priority 0 reclaim.
> 

Yes. I missed it. Thanks. 

> 
> > And although priority become 0, nr_scan_try_batch returns zero until
> > saved pages become 32. So for scanning the page, at least, we need 32
> > times iteration of priority 12..0.  If system has fork-bomb, it is
> > almost livelock.
> 
> Therefore, 1000 times get_scan_count(DEF_PRIORITY) takes 1000 times no-op.
> 
> > 
> > If is is right, how about this?
> 
> Boo.
> You seems forgot why you introduced current all_unreclaimable() function.
> While hibernation, we can't trust all_unreclaimable.

Hmm. AFAIR, the why we add all_unreclaimable is when the hibernation is going on,
kswapd is freezed so it can't mark the zone->all_unreclaimable.
So I think hibernation can't be a problem.
Am I miss something?

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2011-03-23  8:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20110314232156.0c363813.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
     [not found] ` <20110315153801.3526.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
2011-03-22 11:04   ` [patch 0/5] oom: a few anti fork bomb patches KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 11:05     ` [PATCH 1/5] vmscan: remove all_unreclaimable check from direct reclaim path completely KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 14:49       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  5:21         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  6:59           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  7:13             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  8:24               ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2011-03-23  8:44                 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  9:02                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  2:11                     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  2:21                       ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-24  2:48                         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  3:04                           ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-24  5:35                             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  4:19                       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  5:35                         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  5:53                           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  6:16                             ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  6:32                               ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  7:03                                 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  7:25                                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  7:28                                     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  7:34                                       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  7:41                                         ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24  7:43                                         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24  7:43                           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  7:41       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-23  7:55         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 11:06     ` [PATCH 2/5] Revert "oom: give the dying task a higher priority" KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  7:42       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-23 13:40         ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2011-03-24  0:06           ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-24 15:27       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28  9:48         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-28 12:28           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28  9:51         ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-28 12:21           ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28 12:28             ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-28 12:40               ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28 13:10                 ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2011-03-28 13:18                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-03-28 13:56                     ` Luis Claudio R. Goncalves
2011-03-29  2:46                     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-28 13:48                   ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-22 11:08     ` [PATCH 3/5] oom: create oom autogroup KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-22 23:21       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-23  1:27         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  2:41           ` Mike Galbraith
2011-03-22 11:08     ` [PATCH 4/5] mm: introduce wait_on_page_locked_killable KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  7:44       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-24 15:04       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-22 11:09     ` [PATCH 5/5] x86,mm: make pagefault killable KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23  7:49       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-23  8:09         ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-23 14:34           ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-24 15:10       ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-24 17:13       ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-03-24 17:34         ` Linus Torvalds
2011-03-28  7:00           ` KOSAKI Motohiro

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=20110323082423.GA1969@barrios-desktop \
    --to=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=avagin@openvz.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=npiggin@kernel.dk \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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).