lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] vmscan: limit concurrent reclaimers in shrink_zone
From
Date
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 14:08 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > +max_zone_concurrent_reclaim:
> > +
> > +The number of processes that are allowed to simultaneously reclaim
> > +memory from a particular memory zone.
> > +
> > +With certain workloads, hundreds of processes end up in the page
> > +reclaim code simultaneously. This can cause large slowdowns due
> > +to lock contention, freeing of way too much memory and occasionally
> > +false OOM kills.
> > +
> > +To avoid these problems, only allow a smaller number of processes
> > +to reclaim pages from each memory zone simultaneously.
> > +
> > +The default value is 8.
>
> I don't like the hardcoded number. Is the same number good for a 128MB
> embedded system as for as 1TB server? Seems doubtful.
>
> This should be perhaps scaled with memory size and number of CPUs?

Remember this a per-zone number.

>
> > +/*
> > + * Maximum number of processes concurrently running the page
> > + * reclaim code in a memory zone. Having too many processes
> > + * just results in them burning CPU time waiting for locks,
> > + * so we're better off limiting page reclaim to a sane number
> > + * of processes at a time. We do this per zone so local node
> > + * reclaim on one NUMA node will not block other nodes from
> > + * making progress.
> > + */
> > +int max_zone_concurrent_reclaimers = 8;
>
> __read_mostly
>
> > +
> > static LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
> > static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
> >
> > @@ -1600,6 +1612,29 @@ static void shrink_zone(int priority, struct zone *zone,
> > struct zone_reclaim_stat *reclaim_stat = get_reclaim_stat(zone, sc);
> > int noswap = 0;
> >
> > + if (!current_is_kswapd() && atomic_read(&zone->concurrent_reclaimers) >
> > + max_zone_concurrent_reclaimers) {
> > + /*
> > + * Do not add to the lock contention if this zone has
> > + * enough processes doing page reclaim already, since
> > + * we would just make things slower.
> > + */
> > + sleep_on(&zone->reclaim_wait);
>
> wait_event()? sleep_on is a really deprecated racy interface.
>
> This would still badly thunder the herd if not enough memory is freed
> , won't it? It would be better to only wake up a single process if memory got freed.
>
> How about for each page freed do a wake up for one thread?
>
>
> -Andi



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-14 15:23    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site