Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:11:45PM -0000, Andy Chittenden wrote:
> > DMA free:20kB min:24kB low:28kB high:36kB active:0kB inactive:0kB
> > present:12740kB pages_scanned:4 all_unreclaimable? yes
>
> Note we only scanned 4 pages before we gave up.
> Larry Woodman came up with this patch below that clears all_unreclaimable
> when in two places where we've made progress at freeing up some pages
> which has helped oom situations for some of our users.
>
We already clear ->all_unreclaimable in free_pages_bulk, so I guess the
changes here are a) bypass the per-cpu-pages magazining (fair enough I
suppose) and b) clear all_unreclaimable earlier: as a page becomes
reclaimable, not as we reclaim it.
I wonder if it really makes a difference. Given that various processes are
currently scanning their little hearts out, if a reclaimable page pops up
at the tail of the LRU, we'll reclaim it pretty much immediately and go off
and, after the per-cpu batching, will clear ->all_unreclaimable.
> --- linux-2.6/mm/filemap.c~ 2005-12-10 01:47:15.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/filemap.c 2005-12-10 01:47:46.000000000 -0500
> @@ -471,11 +471,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(unlock_page);
> */
> void end_page_writeback(struct page *page)
> {
> + struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
> if (!TestClearPageReclaim(page) || rotate_reclaimable_page(page)) {
> if (!test_clear_page_writeback(page))
> BUG();
> }
> smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
> + if (zone->all_unreclaimable) {
> + spin_lock(&zone->lock);
> + zone->all_unreclaimable = 0;
> + zone->pages_scanned = 0;
> + spin_unlock(&zone->lock);
> + }
> wake_up_page(page, PG_writeback);
> }
Wouldn't it be better to only clear ->all_unreclaimable if the page was
actually reclaimable? ie: inside rotate_reclaimable_page()?
Doing that would also fix the deadlock in the above code: zone.lock is
supposed to be irq-safe.
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(end_page_writeback);
> --- linux-2.6.15/mm/page_alloc.c~ 2006-01-09 13:40:03.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6.15/mm/page_alloc.c 2006-01-09 13:40:50.000000000 -0500
> @@ -722,6 +722,11 @@ static void fastcall free_hot_cold_page(
> if (pcp->count >= pcp->high) {
> free_pages_bulk(zone, pcp->batch, &pcp->list, 0);
> pcp->count -= pcp->batch;
> + } else if (zone->all_unreclaimable) {
> + spin_lock(&zone->lock);
> + zone->all_unreclaimable = 0;
> + zone->pages_scanned = 0;
> + spin_unlock(&zone->lock);
> }
This is the bypass-the-batching patch. It's a reasonable thing to do, but I'd
just do it unconditionally and remove the code which clears
->all_unreclaimable from free_pages_bulk(), if possible.
Has this patch been shown to have any effect? If so, what was it, and
under what conditions?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
