From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, mgorman@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: limit direct reclaim for higher order allocations
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:47:27 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1456368447.25322.23.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160225003032.GA9723@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1428 bytes --]
On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 09:30 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 05:17:56PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 14:15 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > >
> > > > For multi page allocations smaller than
> > > > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER,
> > > > the kernel will do direct reclaim if compaction failed for any
> > > > reason. This worked fine when Linux systems had 128MB RAM, but
> > > > on my 24GB system I frequently see higher order allocations
> > > > free up over 3GB of memory, pushing all kinds of things into
> > > > swap, and slowing down applications.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just curious, are these higher order allocations typically done
> > > by
> > > the
> > > slub allocator or where are they coming from?
> >
> > These are slab allocator ones, indeed.
> >
> > The allocations seem to be order 2 and 3, mostly
> > on behalf of the inode cache and alloc_skb.
>
> Hello, Rik.
>
> Could you tell me the kernel version you tested?
>
> Commit 45eb00cd3a03 (mm/slub: don't wait for high-order page
> allocation) changes slub allocator's behaviour that high order
> allocation request by slub doesn't cause direct reclaim.
The system I observed the problem on has a
4.2 based kernel on it. That would explain.
Are we sure the problem is limited just to
slub, though?
--
All Rights Reversed.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-25 2:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-24 21:38 [PATCH] mm: limit direct reclaim for higher order allocations Rik van Riel
2016-02-24 22:15 ` David Rientjes
2016-02-24 22:17 ` Rik van Riel
2016-02-25 0:30 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-02-25 2:47 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2016-02-25 4:42 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-02-24 23:02 ` Andrew Morton
2016-02-24 23:28 ` Rik van Riel
2016-02-25 14:43 ` Michal Hocko
2016-03-07 15:42 ` Vlastimil Babka
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=1456368447.25322.23.camel@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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