Re: MM VM patches was: 2.6.3-mm4

[Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>]

Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> 
> Mike Fedyk wrote:
> 
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>> shrink_slab-for-all-zones.patch
>>>   vm: scan slab in response to highmem scanning
>>>
>>> zone-balancing-fix.patch
>>>   vmscan: zone balancing fix
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2.6.3 + [1] + nfsd-lofft.patch running on a 1GB ram file server.   
>> I have noticed two related issues.
>>
>> First, under 2.6.3 it averages about 90MB[2] anon memory, and 30MB 
>> with the -mm4 vm (the rest is in swap cache).  This could balance out 
>> on the normal non-idle week-day load though...
>>
>> Second the -mm4 vm, there is a lot more swapping[3] going on during 
>> the daily updatedb, and backup runs that are performed on this machine.
>> I'd have to call this second issue a regression, but I want to run it 
>> a couple more days to see if it gets any better (unless you agree of 
>> course).
>>
> 
> There are a few things backed out now in 2.6.4-rc1-mm1, and quite a
> few other changes. I hope we can trouble you to test 2.6.4-rc1-mm1?

Yes, I saw that, but since I wasn't using the new code, I chose to keep 
it in the "-mm4" thread. :-D

I'll backport it to 2.6.3 if it doesn't patch with "-F3"...

> Tell me, do you have highmem enabled on this system? If so, swapping

Yes, to get that extra 128MB ram. :)

> might be explained by the batching patch. With it, a small highmem
> zone could possibly place quite a lot more pressure on a large
> ZONE_NORMAL.
> 
> 2.6.4-rc1-mm1 sould do much better here.

OK, I'll give that one a shot Monday or Tuesday night.

So, I'll merge up 2.6.3 + "vm of rc1-mm1" and tell you guys what I see.

Are the graphs helpful at all?

Mike