From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Cc: AChittenden@bluearc.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
lwoodman@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Out of Memory: Killed process 16498 (java).
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:03:05 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060119170305.2e8ae353.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060119194836.GM21663@redhat.com>
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> 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?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-20 1:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-19 15:11 Out of Memory: Killed process 16498 (java) Andy Chittenden
2006-01-19 19:48 ` Dave Jones
2006-01-19 22:15 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-20 8:12 ` Jens Axboe
2006-01-20 8:23 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-20 12:08 ` Jens Axboe
2006-01-20 12:17 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-20 12:28 ` Jens Axboe
2006-01-20 12:51 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-20 1:03 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2006-01-20 1:28 ` Dave Jones
2006-01-20 1:49 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-21 20:00 ` Dan Aloni
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-01-27 11:53 Andy Chittenden
2006-01-27 14:21 ` Jens Axboe
2006-01-27 14:39 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2006-01-23 10:03 Andy Chittenden
2006-01-23 10:11 ` Jens Axboe
2006-01-21 21:47 Andy Chittenden
2006-01-23 9:27 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] <89E85E0168AD994693B574C80EDB9C27035561DE@uk-email.terastack.bluearc.com>
2006-01-20 17:39 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] <89E85E0168AD994693B574C80EDB9C27035560E4@uk-email.terastack.bluearc.com>
2006-01-20 12:37 ` Larry Woodman
[not found] <89E85E0168AD994693B574C80EDB9C2703555F8E@uk-email.terastack.bluearc.com>
2006-01-19 9:44 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-19 9:40 Andy Chittenden
2006-01-19 9:41 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-19 8:43 Andy Chittenden
2006-01-19 8:56 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-19 9:36 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-19 20:54 ` Martin Bligh
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=20060119170305.2e8ae353.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=AChittenden@bluearc.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).