* Very aggressive memory reclaim
@ 2011-03-28 16:39 John Lepikhin
2011-03-28 17:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-03-28 21:53 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: John Lepikhin @ 2011-03-28 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hello,
I use high-loaded machine with 10M+ inodes inside XFS, 50+ GB of
memory, intensive HDD traffic and 20..50 forks per second. Vanilla
kernel 2.6.37.4. The problem is that kernel frees memory very
aggressively.
For example:
25% of memory is used by processes
50% for page caches
7% for slabs, etc.
18% free.
That's bad but works. After few hours:
25% of memory is used by processes
62% for page caches
7% for slabs, etc.
5% free.
Most of files are cached, works perfectly. This is the moment when
kernel decides to free some memory. After memory reclaim:
25% of memory is used by processes
25% for page caches(!)
7% for slabs, etc.
43% free(!)
Page cache is dropped, server becomes too slow. This is the beginning
of new cycle.
I didn't found any huge mallocs at that moment. Looks like because of
large number of small mallocs (forks) kernel have pessimistic forecast
about future memory usage and frees too much memory. Is there any
options of tuning this? Any other variants?
Thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim
2011-03-28 16:39 Very aggressive memory reclaim John Lepikhin
@ 2011-03-28 17:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-03-28 21:53 ` Dave Chinner
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2011-03-28 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Lepikhin; +Cc: linux-kernel, Alexander Viro, linux-fsdevel
[ Add Cc's of those that may help you ]
-- Steve
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:39:29PM +0400, John Lepikhin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I use high-loaded machine with 10M+ inodes inside XFS, 50+ GB of
> memory, intensive HDD traffic and 20..50 forks per second. Vanilla
> kernel 2.6.37.4. The problem is that kernel frees memory very
> aggressively.
>
> For example:
>
> 25% of memory is used by processes
> 50% for page caches
> 7% for slabs, etc.
> 18% free.
>
> That's bad but works. After few hours:
>
> 25% of memory is used by processes
> 62% for page caches
> 7% for slabs, etc.
> 5% free.
>
> Most of files are cached, works perfectly. This is the moment when
> kernel decides to free some memory. After memory reclaim:
>
> 25% of memory is used by processes
> 25% for page caches(!)
> 7% for slabs, etc.
> 43% free(!)
>
> Page cache is dropped, server becomes too slow. This is the beginning
> of new cycle.
>
> I didn't found any huge mallocs at that moment. Looks like because of
> large number of small mallocs (forks) kernel have pessimistic forecast
> about future memory usage and frees too much memory. Is there any
> options of tuning this? Any other variants?
>
> Thanks!
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim
2011-03-28 16:39 Very aggressive memory reclaim John Lepikhin
2011-03-28 17:42 ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2011-03-28 21:53 ` Dave Chinner
2011-03-28 22:52 ` Minchan Kim
` (2 more replies)
1 sibling, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2011-03-28 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Lepikhin; +Cc: linux-kernel, xfs, linux-mm
[cc xfs and mm lists]
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:39:29PM +0400, John Lepikhin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I use high-loaded machine with 10M+ inodes inside XFS, 50+ GB of
> memory, intensive HDD traffic and 20..50 forks per second. Vanilla
> kernel 2.6.37.4. The problem is that kernel frees memory very
> aggressively.
>
> For example:
>
> 25% of memory is used by processes
> 50% for page caches
> 7% for slabs, etc.
> 18% free.
>
> That's bad but works. After few hours:
>
> 25% of memory is used by processes
> 62% for page caches
> 7% for slabs, etc.
> 5% free.
>
> Most of files are cached, works perfectly. This is the moment when
> kernel decides to free some memory. After memory reclaim:
>
> 25% of memory is used by processes
> 25% for page caches(!)
> 7% for slabs, etc.
> 43% free(!)
>
> Page cache is dropped, server becomes too slow. This is the beginning
> of new cycle.
>
> I didn't found any huge mallocs at that moment. Looks like because of
> large number of small mallocs (forks) kernel have pessimistic forecast
> about future memory usage and frees too much memory. Is there any
> options of tuning this? Any other variants?
First it would be useful to determine why the VM is reclaiming so
much memory. If it is somewhat predictable when the excessive
reclaim is going to happen, it might be worth capturing an event
trace from the VM so we can see more precisely what it is doiing
during this event. In that case, recording the kmem/* and vmscan/*
events is probably sufficient to tell us what memory allocations
triggered reclaim and how much reclaim was done on each event.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim
2011-03-28 21:53 ` Dave Chinner
@ 2011-03-28 22:52 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-29 2:55 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-29 7:22 ` John Lepikhin
2011-03-28 23:58 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-29 7:26 ` John Lepikhin
2 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Minchan Kim @ 2011-03-28 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: John Lepikhin, linux-kernel, xfs, linux-mm
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> [cc xfs and mm lists]
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:39:29PM +0400, John Lepikhin wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I use high-loaded machine with 10M+ inodes inside XFS, 50+ GB of
>> memory, intensive HDD traffic and 20..50 forks per second. Vanilla
>> kernel 2.6.37.4. The problem is that kernel frees memory very
>> aggressively.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> 25% of memory is used by processes
>> 50% for page caches
>> 7% for slabs, etc.
>> 18% free.
>>
>> That's bad but works. After few hours:
>>
>> 25% of memory is used by processes
>> 62% for page caches
>> 7% for slabs, etc.
>> 5% free.
>>
>> Most of files are cached, works perfectly. This is the moment when
>> kernel decides to free some memory. After memory reclaim:
>>
>> 25% of memory is used by processes
>> 25% for page caches(!)
>> 7% for slabs, etc.
>> 43% free(!)
>>
>> Page cache is dropped, server becomes too slow. This is the beginning
>> of new cycle.
>>
>> I didn't found any huge mallocs at that moment. Looks like because of
>> large number of small mallocs (forks) kernel have pessimistic forecast
>> about future memory usage and frees too much memory. Is there any
>> options of tuning this? Any other variants?
>
> First it would be useful to determine why the VM is reclaiming so
> much memory. If it is somewhat predictable when the excessive
> reclaim is going to happen, it might be worth capturing an event
> trace from the VM so we can see more precisely what it is doiing
> during this event. In that case, recording the kmem/* and vmscan/*
> events is probably sufficient to tell us what memory allocations
> triggered reclaim and how much reclaim was done on each event.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
>
Recently, We had a similar issue.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg12243.html
But it seems to not merge. I don't know why since I didn't follow up the thread.
Maybe Cced guys can help you.
Is it a sudden big cache drop at the moment or accumulated small cache
drop for long time?
What's your zones' size?
Please attach the result of cat /proc/zoneinfo for others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim
2011-03-28 21:53 ` Dave Chinner
2011-03-28 22:52 ` Minchan Kim
@ 2011-03-28 23:58 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-29 1:57 ` Dave Chinner
2011-03-29 7:26 ` John Lepikhin
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2011-03-28 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: John Lepikhin, linux-kernel, xfs, linux-mm
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> writes:
>
> First it would be useful to determine why the VM is reclaiming so
> much memory. If it is somewhat predictable when the excessive
> reclaim is going to happen, it might be worth capturing an event
Often it's to get pages of a higher order. Just tracing alloc_pages
should tell you that.
There are a few other cases (like memory failure handling), but they're
more obscure.
-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim
2011-03-28 23:58 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2011-03-29 1:57 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2011-03-29 1:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: John Lepikhin, linux-kernel, xfs, linux-mm
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 04:58:50PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> writes:
> >
> > First it would be useful to determine why the VM is reclaiming so
> > much memory. If it is somewhat predictable when the excessive
> > reclaim is going to happen, it might be worth capturing an event
>
> Often it's to get pages of a higher order. Just tracing alloc_pages
> should tell you that.
Yes, the kmem/mm_page_alloc tracepoint gives us that. But in case
that is not the cause, grabbing all the trace points I suggested is
more likely to indicate where the problem is. I'd prefer to get more
data than needed the first time around than have to do multiple
round trips because a single trace point doesn't tell us the cause...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim
2011-03-28 22:52 ` Minchan Kim
@ 2011-03-29 2:55 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-29 7:33 ` John Lepikhin
2011-03-29 7:22 ` John Lepikhin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: KOSAKI Motohiro @ 2011-03-29 2:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Minchan Kim
Cc: kosaki.motohiro, Dave Chinner, John Lepikhin, linux-kernel, xfs,
linux-mm
> Recently, We had a similar issue.
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg12243.html
> But it seems to not merge. I don't know why since I didn't follow up the thread.
> Maybe Cced guys can help you.
>
> Is it a sudden big cache drop at the moment or accumulated small cache
> drop for long time?
> What's your zones' size?
>
> Please attach the result of cat /proc/zoneinfo for others.
If my remember is correct, 2.6.38 is included Mel's anti agressive
reclaim patch. And original report seems to be using 2.6.37.x.
John, can you try 2.6.38?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim
2011-03-28 22:52 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-29 2:55 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
@ 2011-03-29 7:22 ` John Lepikhin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: John Lepikhin @ 2011-03-29 7:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Minchan Kim; +Cc: Dave Chinner, linux-kernel, xfs, linux-mm
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --]
2011/3/29 Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>:
> Please attach the result of cat /proc/zoneinfo for others.
See attachment. Right now I have no zoneinfo for crisis time, but I
can catch it if required.
[-- Attachment #2: zoneinfo --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 14655 bytes --]
Node 0, zone DMA
pages free 3968
min 0
low 0
high 0
scanned 0
spanned 4080
present 3920
nr_free_pages 3968
nr_inactive_anon 0
nr_active_anon 0
nr_inactive_file 0
nr_active_file 0
nr_unevictable 0
nr_mlock 0
nr_anon_pages 0
nr_mapped 0
nr_file_pages 0
nr_dirty 0
nr_writeback 0
nr_slab_reclaimable 0
nr_slab_unreclaimable 0
nr_page_table_pages 0
nr_kernel_stack 0
nr_unstable 0
nr_bounce 0
nr_vmscan_write 0
nr_writeback_temp 0
nr_isolated_anon 0
nr_isolated_file 0
nr_shmem 0
nr_dirtied 0
nr_written 0
numa_hit 0
numa_miss 0
numa_foreign 0
numa_interleave 0
numa_local 0
numa_other 0
protection: (0, 2173, 48380, 48380)
pagesets
cpu: 0
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 1
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 2
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 3
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 4
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 5
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 6
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 7
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 8
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 9
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 10
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 11
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 12
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 13
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 14
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 15
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 16
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 17
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 18
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 19
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 20
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 21
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 22
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
cpu: 23
count: 0
high: 0
batch: 1
vm stats threshold: 10
all_unreclaimable: 0
start_pfn: 16
inactive_ratio: 1
Node 0, zone DMA32
pages free 364761
min 16
low 20
high 24
scanned 0
spanned 1044480
present 556409
nr_free_pages 364761
nr_inactive_anon 21990
nr_active_anon 7663
nr_inactive_file 73
nr_active_file 2300
nr_unevictable 0
nr_mlock 0
nr_anon_pages 28933
nr_mapped 419
nr_file_pages 3093
nr_dirty 2
nr_writeback 0
nr_slab_reclaimable 114260
nr_slab_unreclaimable 17480
nr_page_table_pages 52
nr_kernel_stack 4
nr_unstable 0
nr_bounce 0
nr_vmscan_write 1394045
nr_writeback_temp 0
nr_isolated_anon 0
nr_isolated_file 0
nr_shmem 720
nr_dirtied 2710373
nr_written 3892495
numa_hit 457923559
numa_miss 142009831
numa_foreign 0
numa_interleave 0
numa_local 457586157
numa_other 142347233
protection: (0, 0, 46207, 46207)
pagesets
cpu: 0
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 1
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 2
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 3
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 4
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 5
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 6
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 7
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 8
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 9
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 10
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 11
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 12
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 13
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 14
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 15
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 16
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 17
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 18
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 19
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 20
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 21
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 22
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
cpu: 23
count: 0
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 60
all_unreclaimable: 0
start_pfn: 4096
inactive_ratio: 4
Node 0, zone Normal
pages free 1647180
min 357
low 446
high 535
scanned 0
spanned 11993088
present 11829120
nr_free_pages 1647180
nr_inactive_anon 450069
nr_active_anon 3433771
nr_inactive_file 2955991
nr_active_file 2119000
nr_unevictable 0
nr_mlock 0
nr_anon_pages 3638671
nr_mapped 115635
nr_file_pages 5320039
nr_dirty 75137
nr_writeback 2
nr_slab_reclaimable 786231
nr_slab_unreclaimable 97963
nr_page_table_pages 67845
nr_kernel_stack 1361
nr_unstable 0
nr_bounce 0
nr_vmscan_write 15379957
nr_writeback_temp 0
nr_isolated_anon 0
nr_isolated_file 0
nr_shmem 245041
nr_dirtied 211669545
nr_written 202526281
numa_hit 41186823085
numa_miss 235241135
numa_foreign 690066765
numa_interleave 27671
numa_local 41186809452
numa_other 235254768
protection: (0, 0, 0, 0)
pagesets
cpu: 0
count: 153
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 1
count: 156
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 2
count: 160
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 3
count: 177
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 4
count: 157
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 5
count: 165
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 6
count: 26
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 7
count: 161
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 8
count: 137
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 9
count: 169
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 10
count: 27
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 11
count: 164
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 12
count: 177
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 13
count: 180
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 14
count: 180
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 15
count: 183
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 16
count: 98
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 17
count: 170
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 18
count: 92
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 19
count: 157
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 20
count: 162
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 21
count: 177
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 22
count: 157
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 23
count: 171
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
all_unreclaimable: 0
start_pfn: 1048576
inactive_ratio: 21
Node 1, zone Normal
pages free 2790210
min 375
low 468
high 562
scanned 0
spanned 12582912
present 12410880
nr_free_pages 2790210
nr_inactive_anon 551309
nr_active_anon 3043861
nr_inactive_file 2311025
nr_active_file 2310059
nr_unevictable 0
nr_mlock 0
nr_anon_pages 3297378
nr_mapped 141699
nr_file_pages 4918896
nr_dirty 51559
nr_writeback 0
nr_slab_reclaimable 862638
nr_slab_unreclaimable 123830
nr_page_table_pages 145273
nr_kernel_stack 1497
nr_unstable 0
nr_bounce 0
nr_vmscan_write 10156465
nr_writeback_temp 0
nr_isolated_anon 0
nr_isolated_file 0
nr_shmem 297798
nr_dirtied 216473986
nr_written 191524308
numa_hit 43711879913
numa_miss 690066765
numa_foreign 377250966
numa_interleave 27810
numa_local 43711847977
numa_other 690098701
protection: (0, 0, 0, 0)
pagesets
cpu: 0
count: 159
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 1
count: 71
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 2
count: 175
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 3
count: 180
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 4
count: 181
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 5
count: 74
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 6
count: 170
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 7
count: 159
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 8
count: 176
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 9
count: 161
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 10
count: 180
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 11
count: 5
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 12
count: 184
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 13
count: 122
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 14
count: 168
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 15
count: 123
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 16
count: 155
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 17
count: 37
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 18
count: 177
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 19
count: 44
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 20
count: 185
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 21
count: 28
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 22
count: 172
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
cpu: 23
count: 190
high: 186
batch: 31
vm stats threshold: 100
all_unreclaimable: 0
start_pfn: 13041664
inactive_ratio: 21
[-- Attachment #3: meminfo --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 1015 bytes --]
MemTotal: 99149428 kB
MemFree: 19224476 kB
Buffers: 0 kB
Cached: 40968112 kB
SwapCached: 0 kB
Active: 43666616 kB
Inactive: 25161828 kB
Active(anon): 25941180 kB
Inactive(anon): 4093472 kB
Active(file): 17725436 kB
Inactive(file): 21068356 kB
Unevictable: 0 kB
Mlocked: 0 kB
SwapTotal: 0 kB
SwapFree: 0 kB
Dirty: 506792 kB
Writeback: 0 kB
AnonPages: 27859928 kB
Mapped: 1031012 kB
Shmem: 2174236 kB
Slab: 8009608 kB
SReclaimable: 7052516 kB
SUnreclaim: 957092 kB
KernelStack: 22896 kB
PageTables: 852680 kB
NFS_Unstable: 0 kB
Bounce: 0 kB
WritebackTmp: 0 kB
CommitLimit: 49574712 kB
Committed_AS: 301362748 kB
VmallocTotal: 34359738367 kB
VmallocUsed: 635548 kB
VmallocChunk: 34258959360 kB
DirectMap4k: 1284 kB
DirectMap2M: 3084288 kB
DirectMap1G: 97517568 kB
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim
2011-03-28 21:53 ` Dave Chinner
2011-03-28 22:52 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-28 23:58 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2011-03-29 7:26 ` John Lepikhin
2011-03-29 8:59 ` Avi Kivity
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: John Lepikhin @ 2011-03-29 7:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: linux-kernel, xfs, linux-mm
2011/3/29 Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>:
> First it would be useful to determine why the VM is reclaiming so
> much memory. If it is somewhat predictable when the excessive
> reclaim is going to happen, it might be worth capturing an event
> trace from the VM so we can see more precisely what it is doiing
> during this event. In that case, recording the kmem/* and vmscan/*
> events is probably sufficient to tell us what memory allocations
> triggered reclaim and how much reclaim was done on each event.
Do you mean I must add some debug to mm functions? I don't know any
other way to catch such events.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim
2011-03-29 2:55 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
@ 2011-03-29 7:33 ` John Lepikhin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: John Lepikhin @ 2011-03-29 7:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: KOSAKI Motohiro; +Cc: Minchan Kim, Dave Chinner, linux-kernel, xfs, linux-mm
2011/3/29 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>:
> If my remember is correct, 2.6.38 is included Mel's anti agressive
> reclaim patch. And original report seems to be using 2.6.37.x.
>
> John, can you try 2.6.38?
I'll ask my boss about it. Unfortunately we found opposite issue with
memory management + XFS (100M of inodes) on 2.6.38: some objects in
xfs_inode and dentry slabs are seems to be never cleared (at least
without "sync && echo 2 >.../drop_caches"). But this is not a
production machine working 24x7, so we don't care about it right now.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: Very aggressive memory reclaim
2011-03-29 7:26 ` John Lepikhin
@ 2011-03-29 8:59 ` Avi Kivity
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Avi Kivity @ 2011-03-29 8:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Lepikhin; +Cc: Dave Chinner, linux-kernel, xfs, linux-mm
On 03/29/2011 09:26 AM, John Lepikhin wrote:
> 2011/3/29 Dave Chinner<david@fromorbit.com>:
>
> > First it would be useful to determine why the VM is reclaiming so
> > much memory. If it is somewhat predictable when the excessive
> > reclaim is going to happen, it might be worth capturing an event
> > trace from the VM so we can see more precisely what it is doiing
> > during this event. In that case, recording the kmem/* and vmscan/*
> > events is probably sufficient to tell us what memory allocations
> > triggered reclaim and how much reclaim was done on each event.
>
> Do you mean I must add some debug to mm functions? I don't know any
> other way to catch such events.
Download and build trace-cmd
(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rostedt/trace-cmd.git),
and do
$ trace-cmd record -e kmem -e vmscan -b 30000
Hit ctrl-C when done and post the output file generated in cwd.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-03-29 8:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-03-28 16:39 Very aggressive memory reclaim John Lepikhin
2011-03-28 17:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-03-28 21:53 ` Dave Chinner
2011-03-28 22:52 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-29 2:55 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2011-03-29 7:33 ` John Lepikhin
2011-03-29 7:22 ` John Lepikhin
2011-03-28 23:58 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-29 1:57 ` Dave Chinner
2011-03-29 7:26 ` John Lepikhin
2011-03-29 8:59 ` Avi Kivity
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).