Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches

Andrew Morton
2007-03-02T22:24:05Z

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:03:10 -0500
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:19:19 -0500
> > Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> Bill Irwin wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:23:28PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >>>> With 32 CPUs diving into the page reclaim simultaneously,
> >>>> each trying to scan a fraction of memory, this is disastrous
> >>>> for performance. A 256GB system should be even worse.
> >>> Thundering herds of a sort pounding the LRU locks from direct reclaim
> >>> have set off the NMI oopser for users here.
> >> Ditto here.
> >
> > Opterons?
>
> It's happened on IA64, too. Probably on Intel x86-64 as well.

Opterons seem to be particularly prone to lock starvation where a cacheline
gets captured in a single package for ever.

> >> The main reason they end up pounding the LRU locks is the
> >> swappiness heuristic. They scan too much before deciding
> >> that it would be a good idea to actually swap something
> >> out, and with 32 CPUs doing such scanning simultaneously...
> >
> > What kernel version?
>
> Customers are on the 2.6.9 based RHEL4 kernel, but I believe
> we have reproduced the problem on 2.6.18 too during stress
> tests.

The prev_priority fixes were post-2.6.18

> I have no reason to believe we should stick our heads in the
> sand and pretend it no longer exists on 2.6.21.

I have no reason to believe anything. All I see is handwaviness,
speculation and grand plans to rewrite vast amounts of stuff without even a
testcase to demonstrate that said rewrite improved anything.

None of this is going anywhere, is it?