Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:00:15 -0400 (EDT) | From | Dirk Wetter <> | Subject | Re: dead mem walking ;-) |
| |
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > a while before the jobs were submitted i did "readprofile | sort -nr | head -10": > > 296497 total 0.3442 > > 295348 default_idle 5679.7692 > > 300 __rdtsc_delay 10.7143 > > 215 si_swapinfo 1.2500 > > 138 do_softirq 1.0147 > > 107 printk 0.2816 > > 28 do_wp_page 0.0272 > > 17 schedule 0.0117 > > 10 tcp_get_info 0.0077 > > 10 filemap_nopage 0.0073 > > > > the same after i was able to kill the jobs (see below): > > > > 836552 total 0.9710 > > 458757 default_idle 8822.2500 > > 361961 __get_swap_page 665.3695 > > 6629 si_swapinfo 38.5407 > > 1655 do_anonymous_page 5.3734 > > 760 file_read_actor 3.0645 > > 652 statm_pgd_range 1.6633 > > 592 do_softirq 4.3529 > > 498 skb_copy_bits 0.5845 > > 302 __rdtsc_delay 10.7857 > > > Ok, I've seen that before. __get_swap_page() is horribly innefficient.
:-(
> The system is _not_ swaping out data, though. Its just aging the > pte's and allocating swap.
with that jobs it looks to me that swap allocation shouldn't be neccessary? total of all pages should have been below the physcial mem size.
> And that is what is eating the system performance.
does it bring up the load up to 30 and make the machine unusable? (kswapd was also sometimes in the top-list of CPU hogs, but since i sorted it by memory...)
> <snip> > > Can you please show us the output of /proc/meminfo when the system is > behaving badly ?
hold on, we set s.th. up....
~dirkw
- 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/
|  |